The Gap Theory

[Administrator2]

[Word Digger is the proponent here of the Gap Theory. This theory of creation says there is a gap of very long ages between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. During this time there was a whole world which was then destroyed. The world is then rebuilt by God in the six creation days of Genesis. The Gap Theory came into being to try to reconcile the long ages claimed by standard geology and the short time frame given in Genesis. An excellent explanation and refutation of the Gap Theory was found by John Wells here: http://www.creationscience.com/
Go the lower left hand corner and click on "G", then find "gap theory" and click on the links.]


WORD DIGGER
I am responding to a post by Sage, in which he equates those who believe in the Gap Theory as evolutionists who don't believe in a literal six days of creation. That is an unenlightened POV.
If you take the wording of the Bible as literal and fully trustworthy, and consider the bare geologic data (without interpretation),AND put aside ingrained paradigm prejudices, you arrive at the following conclusions based on
Genesis 1:2.. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Fact 1: Earth is already present, but in ruined state.
Fact 2: Water is present
Fact 3: A place called the Deep is present
Fact 4: Darkness is present

All of these present before God said let there be light (Genesis 1:3).
Therefore, the laws of physics are already operating..for there is space, time, matter, and only an absence of light because there was darkness.

Conclusion 1: The Earth had originally been created and inhabited before the six days.
Conclusion 2: All privious life had been wiped out. This accounts for the geologic record.
Conclusion 3: The six days are, indeed, six literal, 24 hour days in which God made from the ruins of the previous world.
Conclusion 4: The above facts and conclusions ALL falsify the theory of evolution. If the previous world was destroyed, then there is no ancesteral or genetic link between Man (made in God's Image) and the hominids of the old world, which secular science claims is early man.
The Gap Theory (I prefere Gap Fact) solves all the theological and geological problems. And Noah's flood, although a real and world-wide event, was NOT the source of all the Earth's geology, as the YEC's contend.


SAGE
If you believe the GAP theory, what do you do with Romans 5 which states that sin entered the world by the first man and death entered by sin? How can we have death occuring before Adam? Also, other than your interpretation of Genesis 1, what do you use to back up your theory(scripture)?


WORD DIGGER
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)
What is interesting about this verse is that before God says
Let there be light (Genesis 1:3)
there are other things that already exist in time and space. Specifically, there is water and the earth and darkness and a place in space and time called the deep. Therefore, the context of the phrase Let there be light
is not the original creation of light and the establishing of the laws of physics (e=mc2) but is God commanding light to shine upon the deep. The mystery is this: If the Earth and everything in the universe was made in six literal 24 hour days (Exodus 20:11), what are the waters and earth and darkness of Genesis 1:2 about? When were those made? Why were they already there BEFORE God began the creative work of Genesis 1:3 through
1:31?


THOMAS CASSIDY
You assume facts not in evidence. If you would go back and read verse 1 you would see that "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth." See that word CREATED? That is when they were created. God did not "begin his creative act" in verse 3 as you assert, He began it in verse 1 as He says.


KATIE
Verse 2 does not mention there being light.


BARNABAS
You are right! But that was because there were no sun, moon, and stars created as of yet. God created light, independent of these heavenly bodies. And remember that, all the creative acts of the Lord which are listed from verse 1 through 5 were done on the first day!


HANKD
Let there be light...

There is an eternal light...

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


MARANATHA2000
You hit the mark Hank
The light of, let there be light, Is GOD taking HIS physical form. This physical form was JESUS. JESUS said "I am the LIGHT". This same light is the light described in REV. The physical form of GOD came and was born a man.
Eternal light is a perfect description. PEACE, but not yet.


WORD DIGGER
You assume facts not in evidence. If you would go back and read verse 1 you would see that "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth." See that word CREATED? That is when they were created. God did not "begin his creative act" in verse 3 as you assert, He began it in verse 1 as He says.

You are half right, but missing the point. In Isaiah 45:18 the Spirit says:
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:18)

The word vain in that verse is the same Hebrew word as without form in Genesis 1:2. That Hebrew word is tohuw (see Strongs # 8414 for full definition) which means waste, desolation, etc.
The point:
Genesis 1:1 says God created the heaven and the earth.
In Isaiah 45:18 He said He did not create it a desolate waste.
But in Genesis 1:2 that is precisely the condition of the earth..desolate and in waste (without form and void.)
So, if the scriptures say God did not create the earth in that condition, why is it found in that condition at Genesis 1:2?


CHRIS TEMPLE
It seems rather clear that since God is the Potter, and all else is clay, that he created the clay in Gen 1:1, and then proceeded to mold that which was formless and void!


THOMAS CASSIDY
word digger,once again you have assumed facts not in evidence. You have assumed Isaiah 45 is talking about the physical condition of creation when, in fact, it is talking about the ethical/spiritual purpose of creation. Genesis says God created the world unformed and unfilled. Isaiah says God did not create the world without a reason. Just remember the three rules of interpretation, Context, Context, Context!


WORD DIGGER
Ok, then you are saying that God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1) and when he did that it was without form and void, filled with water and covered in darkness (Genesis 1:2). And then I guess God said to Himself, Humm..I think it needs more work! Yeah, right!


TACHBULOTH
It all boils down to ONE Hebrew word: hayethah.
The KJV translates (or miss translates this word depending on your view) as “was.”
However, the word has as much authority to be translated “became.”
So does verse 2 read “And the earth was with out form” and we assume the God of infinite detail allowed “no form” or rational to his creation?
Or, does verse 2 read “And the earth became without form” and we see the absolute authority of the universe suddenly plunged into chaos?

I prefer the second reading because of a number of evidences I will only state a few.
First: Paul writes that this world is presently waiting for it’s release from the present condemnation. The word for world is not just meaning “the ground” as in what was cursed in the garden.
Second: I direct your eyes upon the scene of the cross. Did not the whole universe react? Did not the earth quake, the sun darken, the stars refuse to shine, the graves open and other manifestations of a universal impact emanating from the cross? Yet man in his mere ignorance and willful blindness mocked God and walked by.

So, reader I have left you to wonder.

What better way to read Gen. 1:2 than to see the Mighty hand of God ripping from the claws of our enemy that which was the cause of The Son’s proclamation, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…”


WAYNE ROSSI
God simply doesn't always work in the simplest or most straightforward way, even though He always does so in a way that clearly reinforces His sovereignty over this world. Consider John 9:1-8, when Jesus heals a man born blind by having the man wash mud from Jesus' saliva away in a specific pool. We all know that the Lord could've healed him with a word, or even less--but He didn't. The creation of man happened in the same way--from the ground. The creation of woman? From Adam's rib, of course.

God didn't sit and decide that He'd make a world and see what happened. In His infinite wisdom, He knew what would work best. At many points, this is a somewhat systematic approach--such as creating the earth then shaping it. (This is why I believe our universe has consistent rules--God knew it was for the best--and how no amount of scientific knowledge can ever "disprove" God's sovereignty.) Since we don't know better than God, it's not really our place to judge His methods. So I hardly think you have a solid argument against the earth being created without form.


PASTOR LARRY
It all boils down to ONE Hebrew word: hayethah.

Weston W. Fields slammed the door on this argument in his book, Unformed and Unfilled (Collinsville, IL: Burgener Enterprises, 1976). It will prove somewhat difficult to those who do not know any Hebrew and will prove even more difficult for those who hold to a gap theory becuase it refutes the gap theory from a number of points, one of which is the faulty supposition that vehayetah can mean "became."
I don't know of many people who seriously argue this point anymore. Of course, most have just given up and gone to some form of an evolutionary hypothesis.
Fields will prove most instructive in correcting the fallacy that you have here presented.


LARRY
word_digger, Are you about to propose a Pre-adamite world?

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:…

Kind of rules out the possibility of a gap or world that was (as is in vogue in some charismatic circles)


WORD DIGGER
Call it the Gap Theory or whatever, it is a paradigm of interpretation that beats either Young Earth Creationism or Evolution in explaining the literal wording of the Bible and the geological facts on the ground.
The argument that Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:…
disallows this interpretation is not well reasoned.
What prevents God from taking a ruined and destroyed earth and heaven (without form and void) and making the present heavens and earth (and all that is in them) in six, literal 24 hour days? Nothing! I believe that this is exactly what the Bible is saying.


DHK
The Bible clearly states "For by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." The gap theorists had to rationalize away that verse of Scripture in order to accommodate the evolutionary theories of their day.


WORD DIGGER
There is no "rationalization" here, just concise interpretation. There is a "world" yet to come and there have been "worlds" past, and the Bible tells you this clearly.
2Pe 3:6 Whereby theworld that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Peter was talking about the former world. And then in the very next verse he speaks about this present world:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

And what comes after that? Another world!!

Lu 18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

I don't think this is rationalization, it is scriptural word-for-word rightly dividing, IMHO.


PASTOR LARRY
Word digger, I noticed in your posts here and in browsing through your website that you too have failed to deal with Weston Fields Unformed and Unfilled. Why? He is the major theological/exegetical opposition to you. He has dealt with the arguments and shown why the gap theory cannot stand the test of the Scripture that we hold so highly. He deals with Gen 1:2, Isa 45:18, etc.

In order to be complete in your research, you must deal with those who have answered your arguments. You cannot simply pretend as if they do not exist. At present, you appear to be arguing from an uninformed position. Study Fields and show why he is wrong if indeed he is.


WORD DIGGER
Pastor Larry, I have read many commentaries both pro and con on the subject. There are more "experts" on this matter than you can shake a stick at. So, if they are all "experts" and "leading theologions", why don't they all agree in what they believe? Ever thought about that? When it comes down to crunch time, the Bible and the Spirit are the final authority in all such matters.

I will, however, read Unformed and Unfilled …


DHK
2Pe 3:6 Whereby theworld that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
"Peter was talking about the former world. And then in the very next verse he speaks about this present world."

This is your opinion, your interpretation, of this verse that may be shared by a few others. A great many scholars and commentators believe otherwise. Have you read "The Genesis Flood," by Whitcomb and Morris? Here is what Henry Morris says from his own commentary, "The Genesis Record:"

The gap theory is not only impossible scientifically but also destructive theologically. By accepting the geological age system, the Bible scholar is thereby accepting the fossil record which identifies these "ages." Fossils, however, are dead things! They speak clearly of a world in which suffering, disease, and death--often violent, widespread death--were universal realities. They speak of a world much like our own world, a world containing sharks and jellyfish, dragonflies and cockroaches, turtles and crocodiles, bats and beavers--as well as dinosaurs and gliptodons and other animals now extinct. But that world--the "world that then was"--perished (II Peter 3:6).
If that world existed prior to the supposed pre-Adamic cataclysm, then it existed before the sin of Satan which brought on the cataclysm. That is, suffering and death existed for a billion years before the sin of Satan and the subsequent sin of Adam." (Page 47)

Speaking of Genesis 2:10-14, he says, "It is evident that the geography described in these verses does not exist in the present world, nor has it ever existed since the Flood. The rivers and countries described were antediluvian geographical features, familiar to Adam... They were all destroyed, and the topography and geography completely changed, when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). (Page 90)

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

WORD DIGGER
Dear DHK,
Please look closely at this passage:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (II Peter 3:5-7)

The heavens and earth "which are now" are the SAME heavens and earth that was completed at Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And these were finished before Adam and Noah. Therefore, the heavens and earth before Noah's flood is the same heavens and earth we have today. Noah's flood did not change the present heavens and earth, nor were new heavens and earth made at that time. Although the earth was flooded over completely, and there were climate changes following the flood, the heavens were untouched. Therefore, the "world that then was" can NOT be a reference to the days of Noah. This is further shown by the wording "the earth standing out of the water and in the water" which is not the same as being covered by water. At Genesis 1:2 the cosmos (including the earth) is engulfed in waters. There was the earth in space with waters all around it. That is why in Genesis 1:7 God divided the waters.

Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And the waters "above the firmament" is not speaking of some idiotic "water canopy"; because in Genesis 1:14 the sun, moon, and stars are in the firmament:

Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And, therefore, the waters above the firmament are above this universe, which is the second heaven.

Ps 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

This does not take a rocket scientist to understand, it is simple sixth grade English.


TACHBULOTH
I really don’t care what “theory” it is called: gap, creation, or otherwise.
I find a few elemental problems with those who hold “no other formation” before the six days. Following are a few:

God is eternal. This earth in its present condition is not. Does it not seem extremely unlikely that in eternity past with out man’s knowledge or approval God performed as He would choose? Therefore it seems highly credible that God would have developed something. It would be His nature to do so. As evidenced in the scriptures, God is constantly forming (this world, the universe, nations, new heaven, new earth).

Mere man has always considered himself as the center of all things. So it comes as no surprise that there are those who would hold to the idea that “nothing existing before the six days” just as there are those who hold that nothing will exist when they are dead.

Christ’s work on the cross was more than just to redeem man from sin. As I already pointed out, the universe reacted to the cross, man just cursed the inconvenience and passed by.

Some have posted “as by one man sin entered into the world” as if all sin began with Adam. Now I know there are some Bible teachers who will remember that “sin” entered the garden before Eve even took the fruit. The sin was already present in this world. It wasn’t just suddenly manifested in the garden.

Lastly, it comes to my mind that there are those who want to “sandwich” all history into 6000 years. I do not particularly have a difficulty with that as long as they do not attempt to place prehistory into the same bag. We know very little of the existence of God or His work before “In the beginning.” We also know that the current universe is beyond our scope of understanding and research tools. It follows then that current evidence would demonstrate both the majesty and authority of God over all, and His absolute love and devotion to man.


PASTOR LARRY
Word_digger,. To the argument that sin was in the world before the completion of the seventh day, I ask would God call something very good if it was full of death and decay that only comes from sin? I hardly think that sin is “very good” in God’s sight. Yet that is exactly what he did.

Furthermore, the text of Scripture still does not allow for the gap theory. The Hebrew grammar simply does not permit it. The gap theory, or the precreation chaos theory (a slight modification), depend on an illegitimate appropriate of Hebrew grammar. It simply does not stand. Whatever Moses was saying in Gen 1:1-3, it was not a gap. I appeal to you again to study the Hebrew. The scholars who know Hebrew do not disagree on this as you suggest. They may disagree on whether the text is to be taken literally or figuratively but not on what the text says.

I believe that you have not properly dealt with Scripture but have progressed from the supposed billions of years of the earth to the Scripture to try to find the billions of years. I don't believe the earth is only 6000 years old and if you read Morris you would know that he is not dogmatic on that point. I think 10,000 or so is in line with the biblical record.

Tachbuloth, You too have made a number of both theological and grammatical errors.

Does it not seem extremely unlikely that in eternity past with out man’s knowledge or approval God performed as He would choose?

Since when has man been appointed the judge of what seems “extremely unlikely”? You are guilty of that which you condemn in the same post, that of man being the center of things. We are not the judge. We are the recipients of God's revelation and we are responsible to understand God’s revelation as he intends it to be understand. God can do whatever he wants. I believe that he did what he said he did and that he did it in the way that he revealed it.

Your contention that God is “constantly forming” seems to call into question the clear revelation that God rested (Gen 2:1) and that now God is in the process of sustaining and preserving. He is no longer creating. You are right that God is eternal, and therefore, everything else had a beginning. Genesis tells us about that beginning and you have tried to reinterpret it to mean what you prefer it to mean. I think that is a dangerous way to handle Scripture.

You question the truth of Rom 5:12. Rom 5:12 is the strong theological nexus that ties death and sin together in any universe or creative work of God. You can’t have one without the other. Since on the seventh day, everything was “very good” (Gen 1:31), it stands to reason that Satan sinned sometime after that, very possibly on the early moments of day eight though it could have been several days later. It is quite likely that Adam and Eve sinned on the very same day Satan fell. There is no theological problem with the biblical record. It fits very nicely together. It takes a tremendous amount of creativity to subject it to our own ideas.

Then you speak of “prehistory,” a term that has always made me laugh. What in the world is prehistory?? The history of history? I know it is a popular term but it is an oxymoron. History is history. You admit that we know very little of God and his work in the beginning. In fact, we know only what he has told us. I think we should be content to accept that God did not lie to us when he told us what he did.


LARRY
Digger,
You say that the fossils and coal etc are from the preadamite world.
There is a big problem with that. Fossils have a form and take up space.
The Bible says that the Earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM.


TACHBULOTH
Pastor Larry,
You point to Romans 5:12 as some proof of your belief. But you fail when one knows that the context of Romans 5:12 is not talking of the world meaning universe, rather world meaning the residence and living of man. In fact, Romans 5 is in total a discussion of man and justification before God. It can in no way be used as anything proving your thoughts on creation.

You say, "I believe that he did what he said he did and that he did it in the way that he revealed it." Is this not a restatement of what I said?
Did I not post as to the authority and ability of God to do as He chooses?
You point to Gen. 2:1 (God rested) as if there were no more work to creation. This idea again fails to render proper Scriptural truth for Christ said, “I go to prepare a place for you.” In Revelations we see the “New Heaven and New Earth.”

It is mere man (as you seem to desire to do) that limits God to "six days" for the universe to be formed. As if God even needed "six days."
I am not discounting the Genesis account one consonant. I am disturbed that there are those who choose to think they have biblical support to believe that in eternity past God sat alone with all His attributes and did not perform as He is continually shown He does perform in scripture.

By the way, the Scriptures say that Christ "made all things" and by Him all things continue. So all this idea that God did this or that discounts the fact that it was "The Word" that formed all things and "The Word" that died for all things. The Scriptures further teach that we are “new creatures CREATED in Christ Jesus.

Finally, you put play on words as if that proves your argument.
You say, “In fact, we know only what he has told us. I think we should be content to accept that God did not lie to us when he told us what he did.”

Did I ever say God lied? Did I even allude to the idea that God lied? Did I state anywhere in my post that I doubt that God? The problem with what I posted is that it exults God and you did not. My post points to an unlimited God, yours binds Him into a small man made package. My post opens the possibility that there is not only a God who loved us and sent His son to die for us, but has allowed us to know Him not only through scriptures but as the Psalms say in “all thy handiwork” see Him and glorify in Him.

But your argument of God is limited, short sighted, and in my opinion belittles His character.


PASTOR LARRY
Tachbuloth,
My post to you was general in order to keep it short. I already referenced a source of Hebrew grammar that absolutely refutes your position. I can only assume you have not availed yourself of it since you say that I am not using Hebrew and Scripture. The Scripture that supports “my position” as you call it is the Scripture in Genesis 1.
There is only one way to read the Hebrew grammar and that is what Fields defends. The gap theory depends on a faulty reading of the Hebrew. Read the arguments that Fields make; then let’s discuss it.

On Romans 5:12, are you denying the sin causes death? Are you denying that all of creation was affected by the sin (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:19-22)? The point of Rom 5 is that man’s death was caused by sin. The other passages demonstrate the affect of sin on nature. Sin affected much more than simply Adam and death was the result of sin.

Did I not post as to the authority and ability of God to do as He chooses?

And I did not argue with God’s ability to do what he chooses. He certainly can. I am a sovereign-tist to the utmost. However, I do not believe that God actually did anything contrary to what he said he did. What he said he did is recorded in Gen 1 which takes us back to the original paragraph of this post. The scriptural proof is right there. In your post to Larry you say that you want the Hebrew and Greek any day … Well it is right in front of you. Avail yourself of the proper and necessary resources and see what is says. That is what Fields does in his book and that is why I reference it. The Hebrew does not support a gap theory; it precludes it. Since you like Hebrew so much, check it out.

The idea of Christ preparing a place and a new heavens and new earth is completely and wholly unrelated to this topic. This topic is related to the present world.


It is mere man (as you seem to desire to do) that limits God to "six days" for the universe to be formed. As if God even needed "six days."

I am not limiting God to six days. God could do it however and in however long he wanted to (cf. earlier paragraph). The issue is what he said he did, not what we would like to think he could or may have done or not done. Since the issue is what he said he did, we now are back to the original paragraph here where the Hebrew precludes your position. If you love the Hebrew, let’s take a look at it.


I am not discounting the Genesis account one consonant.

Read Fields and study the Hebrew and I think you will find this statement does not stand. Again, the support is in the Scripture.


I am disturbed that there are those who choose to think they have biblical support to believe that in eternity past God sat alone with all His attributes and did not perform as He is continually shown He does perform in scripture.

And I am concerned by those who think they know things that God has not revealed. If Scripture is the final authority for faith and practice let’s get to it. Once again we are at the original paragraph. Scripture refutes your position. Deal with it.


Did I ever say God lied? Did I even allude to the idea that God lied? Did I state anywhere in my post that I doubt that God?

If you say that Scripture is God’s revelation and say that the gap theory is viable, then you are in effect questioning God’s revelation. Either Moses got it wrong or God apparently lied because the Hebrew grammar precludes the Gap Theory. Your last paragraph on the greatness and exaltation of God is foolishness. I did not belittle him or limit him. God is limited only by his own nature, and his words accurately convey what he did. I do not think that it is honoring to God to take his word and say that it doesn’t really mean what it says. I think we do see his glory in all his handiwork. But his handiwork does not communicate prepositional truth to us. Scripture is the authoritative interpretation of that handiwork. I have not limited God beyond what his revelation says that he did. If you disagree with the grammar and linguistic evidence the Fields establishes, then say why. Don’t keep on promoting a position that is not supported by the text of Scripture.



TACHBULOTH
Perhaps it would be good then to give the Hebrew.
For others who are reading and do not follow what we are saying let me give here a short Hebrew rendition of Genesis 1:1 and 2. It is not meant to be word for word but short enough to dredge out the differences.
“In the beginning” (bereshith) which can be interpreted as the beginning before which only can eternity past. I will note that John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” and John 17:24 “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” both speak of a pre Geneses 1 time to which there was glory and love. Now no singularity (which God is for God is one) can have glory when there is nothing nor the ability to be glorified. Therefore it is reasonable and assumable by default that there was both mode, method, and medium in which the love and glory were expressible.

“God” (Elohim) is in the plural form which expresses the trinity for a singular verb follows.

“Created” (bara) is also used in Genesis 1:21, 27; and 2:4. It is a word that can only mean to make something from nothing. This is extremely distinct from the words Asah (Genesis 1:1, 25, 26; 2:2) or Yatsar (Genesis 2:7, 19) and Banah (Genesis 2:22). The reader will note that all the later words are words that mean to form, make, fashion or build.

To this is added the argument of verse 2. In verse two we see a Hebrew word hayethah. The KJV translates this word was, but it can be translated became. If the context of scripture is as it relates to Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, 2 Peter 2, and Jude is applicable, then hayethah can only or should be translated “became.” However, if one is to take the approach that the context of the mentioned passages are at a later date in Biblical chronology, then the word may be translated “was.”

Also, as a part of the extrapolation in this argument is the word “yom” which is interpreted day. There is evidence that it is used to indicate a 24 hour period of time, but there is also use when it means far more time has passed.
This is the case when it is used in the phrase “the day of the Lord.”

It matters very little if the earth was formed or reformed, whether the earth is billions or thousands. What is important is that God made a promise and sealed that promise with two unchangeable facts. First He made and oath using Himself (in which there is no higher authority) and second He caused that oath to happen. Therefore we have security in Christ and there is nothing that can rob or change that love.

Note in rereading the post I noticed that I did not use a correct reference.
Please see in the context of "This is extremely distinct from the words Asah (Genesis 1:1, 25, 26; 2:2)..." I left out a number. Rather than it reading as it does, it should read " This is extremely distinct from the words Asah (Genesis 1:16, 25, 26; 2:2)..."

 

[Administrator2]

PASTOR LARRY
Forgive the length but I don't want to be accused of not dealing with the scriptural issues.

“In the beginning” (bereshith) which can be interpreted as the beginning before which only can eternity past.[/b]

This appears a convoluted sentence. However, in the plain sense it means the beginning of time since eternity has no beginning. This is not a major point of discussion.


“Created” (bara) is also used in Genesis 1:21, 27; and 2:4. It is a word that can only mean to make something from nothing. …

Here is the first major mistake. To say that it is a word that can only mean to make something from nothing is what NIDOTTE calls, “somewhat misleading” (1:731). To call bara’ “extremely distinct” from ‘asah is to ignore the parallel usage of Gen 5:1 where it says in the day that God “bara’” Adam, he “‘asah” him. Clearly the words have a parallel usage. In Gen 1:26 God said let us make (asah) man in our own image. Gen 1:27 says so he created (bara). Clearly again there is a parallel usage. Gen 2:7 further describes this same event with the word yatzar, again a parallel usage. According to TDNT, it is used in parallelism with ‘asah (Isa 41:20; 43:1,7; 45:7, 12, 18; Amos 4:13), yatsar “Isa 43:1,7; 45:7,18; Amos 4:13); kun (Is 45:18); yasadh (Ps 89:12[11]), and chadhash (Ps 51:12[10]). NIDOTTE says “Though br’ does not appear with mention of material out of which something is created, it is regularly collocated with vbs. that do (e.g. Gen 1:26-27; 2:7, 19; Isa 45:18; Amos 4:13)” (1:731).
Here, your assertion simply does not stand the test of the text.


In verse two we see a Hebrew word hayethah. The KJV translates this word was, but it can be translated became.

Mistake #2 – This is the very point that Fields refutes. He shows clearly from the grammar and linguistical evidence that this assertion is patently incorrect. This is why I have suggested you read Fields and interact with him.


Also, as a part of the extrapolation in this argument is the word “yom” which is interpreted day. There is evidence that it is used to indicate a 24 hour period of time, but there is also use when it means far more time has passed. This is the case when it is used in the phrase “the day of the Lord.”

Mistake #3 – This is also a misrepresentation. When the word yom is used alone as a singular noun as it is in Gen 1 it is always a literal day. Yom can mean longer than 24 hours. However, when it does so, it is found in a genitive construct of some sort (day of the Lord) or with a prefix preposition attached to it (le, be, etc.). It never means other than 24-hour day when it is used alone. Secondly, yom is qualified by morning and evening, something clearly incompatible with long periods of time. For a good discussion see Gerhard Hasel, “The Days of Creation in Genesis 1,” Origins 21 (1994: 23-26). Thirdly, each singular use in Gen 1 is accompanied by a numerical adjective.
In the OT, when yom is accompanied by a numerical adjective it is never used in a figurative sense. Fourthly, the ten commandments verify the legitimacy of 24 hours days. In fact, if yom meant anything other than a 24 hour day, then Ex 20:11 becomes incoherent (cf. Ex 31:14-17).


WORD DIGGER
Larry wrote: You say that the fossils and coal etc are from the preadamite world.
There is a big problem with that. Fossils have a form and take up space.
The Bible says that the Earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM.

But the preadamite world before that time did have form. Genesis 1:2 (without form and void) refers to the state of things later; what they had become. There is no problem. Is that the best you can do?

Forget all the wrangling about the Hebrew. The Gap Theory can be expounded and defended very amply by using the KJV English translation of the scriptures. No English words need to be changed. The word "replenish" at Genesis 1:28, when compared to the CONTEXT of the word "replenish" at Genesis 9:1 reveals the matter. Now, of course, we hear the cry go up that the "Hebrew word here can mean...blah..blah..blahh" but that only will lead to more boring debate on the meaning of Hebrew words. This thread has failed to deal with the true merits of the argument.

The Young Earth creation model can not address the geologic evidence, without ignoring a lot of sound data. I submit that the Gap Theory is the only interpretation which can account for all the data and the anomalies, and answers many "problems" with the literal wording of the Bible.

The Gap theory does NOT side with evolution, as the destruction of all life on the planet at the end of the Preadamite world (Genesis 1:2), followed by a new creation by God in six literal days, eliminates any and all "evolutionary links". The DNA testing of homonids like Neanderthal and others has so far shown that "man" today is not genetically related to whatever was on the earth before the six days, that Adam was commanded to replace (replenish). The Gap Theory on this matter is in complete agreement with the literal scriptural doctrine that "man" was created by God from the dust of the ground and made in His image, about 6000 years ago. What was here before, although physically similar to man, was not man, as made in God's image. Those previous creatures were made in another's image.

If we examine the whole matter from the larger perspective, we find that Young Earth creationism is only a half-truth. A better term would be Young World creationist. In other words, a Young new World on the face of an old earth. Contextual example:

Isa 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

I think the bottom line message I would like to leave with is this: There are thousands of Theologians out there, writing about various topics, and spread across a wide spectrum of beliefs and positions. I'm sure that Dr. Morris is a good man, and has many things right, has all kinds of professional credentials and alphabet soup after his name.
But that does not automatically mean his arguments carry any greater weight and authority than a corn farmer in Iowa who really believes his KJV Bible, word for word, and has learned how to rightly divide that word, as instructed by the Lord. Never judge a book only by it's cover.

The argument was put forth in earlier posts to the effect that how could God say things were "good" if there was a previous world of misery and destruction and the evidence of that was written in stone (fossil record). If you will look in your Bible you will see that God did NOT say it was good after all of the days. He did not say it was good at the end of the second day, when he made a division between the things below and the things above.
There was now, in this regenerated heavens and earth, a division between God in the Third Heaven and the world below in the first and second heavens. That "Sea" of division between God and His creation was not good, but it was necessary. That "sea" is gone after the final judgment (see Revelation 21:1)

Re 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

The bottom line is this, the Bible is the final authority in all matters, regardless what Morris, Ruckman, Pentecost, you, me, or anyone else believes. We will be judged against what is written, not what we make think is written.


One does NOT have to believe in Evolution to accept an old age for the earth and sin and death before Adam. When did Satan first sin? Satan had to have sinned before Adam, else why would he tempt Eve? When did Satan fall? There is no mention of it from Genesis 1 through the creation account. And he is already against God BEFORE, repeat BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned, because Satan tempted them to sin.

Find the answer to that question and then you will be able to reconcile Genesis and the Earth's geology. Sticking your head in the sands of Young Earth denial and evolution bashing does nothing to uncover the full truth of the matter. You MUST answer the tough questions. What is the answer, wellsjs? When did Satan fall? And when he fell, did he not sin, and BEFORE Adam fell?


JOHN WELLS
One does NOT have to believe in Evolution to accept an old age for the earth and sin and death before Adam.

Good then! You and I have no need to debate evolution!


When did Satan first sin? Satan had to have sinned before Adam, else why would he tempt Eve? When did Satan fall? There is no mention of it from Genesis 1 through the creation account. And he is already against God BEFORE, repeat BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned, because Satan tempted them to sin.

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
(Isa 14:12-14 NIV)
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. (Ezek 28:15-17 NIV)


Find the answer to that question and then you will be able to reconcile Genesis and the Earth's geology. Sticking your head in the sands of Young Earth denial and evolution bashing does nothing to uncover the full truth of the matter. You MUST answer the tough questions. What is the answer, wellsjs? When did Satan fall? And when he fell, did he not sin, and BEFORE Adam fell?

And the tough questions are answered in plain sight of any discerning student of God’s Word. See the first quote above. It explains your multiple questions quite well. Satan fell sometime before the creation. Before the creation there was no time, so to try to say more than what I have said would be speculation and pointless, but does not weaken my argument. Yes he did sin. The original sin (of Satan) was pride. And he obviously fell before Adam sinned or he could not have come to earth, but God “cast him down to earth.” He wanted to “raise my throne above the stars of God. I will make myself like the Most High." Hhmmm, sounds like the same thing he induced Adam and Eve to believe: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:4-5 NIV) So the same sin, pride, did in Satan and mankind!

Now, scripture supports my opinion on this. Please defend your rendition of a world/civilization prior to a “second creation” from the scriptures (like someone commented, “did God make a mistake and have to start over?).


WORD DIGGER word_digger
You say that Satan sinned BEFORE the six days of creation. I agree with that. Now my question is this, if death comes from sin, and Satan sinned before Adam (he was created on the sixth day) then, if death comes as a result of sin, did not death then first originate with Satan's fall, instead of Adam's? Just looking for an honest answer.


PASTOR LARRY
You say that Satan sinned BEFORE the six days of creation. I agree with that.

I don't for the following reasons:

1. Satan is a creature and therefore did not exist prior to the six days of creation. He, along with the angelic host was probably created in teh opening moments of day one. Of necessity, the angelic hosts had to be created in time or else they would be eternal as well. Yet God alone is the only eternal being.

2. At the end of the sixth day, God said everything was very good. It is inconceivable that a new creation with sin and death in it could be called very good by God.

Therefore, I believe that Satan probably fell sometime on day eight and the fall of Adam and Eve was shortly thereafter. I have reasons for that too, if you are going to question it.

Word_digger, I still do not know what your infatuation is with the gap theory. It is textually impossible as we discussed earlier. I imagine though that you have not studied it a bit since then. There is no geologic evidence that cannot be explained by a scriptural view of origins. What is that you are trying to accomplish?


JOHN WELLS
word_digger said, "if death comes as a result of sin, did not death then first originate with Satan's fall, instead of Adam's? Just looking for an honest answer."

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- (Rom 5:12 NIV)

In my opinion, this verse and the previous ones from my last post indicate sin originated in heaven when Satan tried to usurp God's authority. Satan is an angelic being, and angels were created not subject to death. But when Satan caused Adam and Eve to sin, God chose "death" as one of the consequences of disobedience.

Pastor Larry,
You bring up a very good point. Through the "six days" God saw that everything was good. I have thought about this before along the lines of where I think you are going. I would very much like to hear more. Could it be that Satan (while still perfect) became jealous of God's focus and attention on Adam and Eve, leading to his rebellion?


CHET
Pastor Larry said:Therefore, I believe that Satan probably fell sometime on day eight and the fall of Adam and Eve was shortly thereafter. I have reasons for that too, if you are going to question it.

I agree with Pastor Larry. Here are more proof texts:
John 8:44
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
(KJV)

I Jn 3:8
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
(KJV)

When is the beginning?

Matt 19:4
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,


JOHN WELLS
In light of scriptural evidence, the "gap theory" with a prior creation that God destroyed belongs in the same category as people who believe there is life on other planets somewhere out there that God also created and He didn't consider it any of our business to tell us about them! Not impossible . . . but not very likely and completely imaginative.


WORD DIGGER
1. Satan is a creature and therefore did not exist prior to the six days of creation. He, along with the angelic host was probably created in teh opening moments of day one. Of necessity, the angelic hosts had to be created in time or else they would be eternal as well. Yet God alone is the only eternal being.

The Bible says God created the angelic host before the creation:
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

It seems to me the Bible says the angelic host was already there, BEFORE God laid the foundation of the earth.


2. At the end of the sixth day, God said everything was very good. It is inconceivable that a new creation with sin and death in it could be called very good by God.

There was no sin or death in the new world until Adam sinned (Romans 5:12), but read your Bible closely, because it says that sin and death "ENTERED" the world:

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

May I also call to your attention the scriptural fact that every day he called good except one. The second day:

Ge 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

He did not say it was good for a division to be made between the world above and the world below. Why is that?

 

[Administrator2]

WORD DIGGER
In my opinion, this verse and the previous ones from my last post indicate sin originated in heaven when Satan tried to usurp God's authority. Satan is an angelic being, and angels were created not subject to death. But when Satan caused Adam and Eve to sin, God chose "death" as one of the consequences of disobedience.

How can sin originate up in heaven, in the presence of a Holy God?


Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

The passage indicates that Satan was in the midst of the stones of fire when he sinned. The last time I looked stones and mountains were physical objects, in time and space.


Therefore, I believe that Satan probably fell sometime on day eight and the fall of Adam and Eve was shortly thereafter. I have reasons for that too, if you are going to question it.

You have a theological problem there, because if the "stones of fire" were in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, and Satan was "walking" in the midst of the stones, and those stones were in this world, and Satan sinned first, then that would make Romans 5:12 untrue.


PASTOR LARRY
The Bible says God created the angelic host before the creation:

Actually, it doesn’t say that. Read the text again It says that the angelic hosts sang when God laid the foundations of the earth. It says nothing about when they were created. You have read that into the text in light of the point you are trying to prove. Assuming as would be logical, that God created in an order, the order seems to be the angelic hosts, then the foundations of the earth. All of this could take place on day one and compromise neither text. The problem with your view is that if angels were created before time they are eternal and God is the only eternal being. All else is created and therefore within time.


There was no sin or death in the new world until Adam sinned (Romans 5:12), but read your Bible closely, because it says that sin and death "ENTERED" the world:

Once again you import a word into the text, the word “new.” It is not there. Your point agrees exactly with mine that sin and death entered the world. The problem is that you have sin and death in the world, affecting material creation (animals, plants, etc) prior to Adam’s sin. That is untenable (Cf. Rom 8:19-22; Gen 3:15ff.).


He did not say it was good for a division to be made between the world above and the world below. Why is that?

I would assume because he chose not to for a reason he felt best not to tell us. I think that the division was certainly included in the “all that he had made, and it was very good” (v. 31). Once again, in light of the text, he does call it good.

As for John Hagee, he is the pastor a rather large church in San Antonio who holds to the gap theory and an aberrant view of dispensationalism. He is just a typical gap theorist and I was just make a little joke about it.

But you haven’t answered the question I asked here or in my previous post: Why are you so enamored with the gap theory? What are you trying to accomplish? The things you present have textual impossibilities and these arguments have been answered over and over again by reputable theologians and scientists..


WORD DIGGER
I guess it is just because I am a hard -headed West Virginian who chooses to believe the Bible over the opinions of "reputable theologians and scientists" when they are wrong. Now, having said that, I just made a judgment. But I am not doing it just to be contentious or argumentative.

Having spent the better part of my life studying this issue, and having been a born again Christian before formally studying geology, it has been my pursuit of service for the Lord to find out the truth. What I have found is that the truth is not always popular or easily accepted, in some cases.

At one time, in my quest, I too was willing to throw out all appeals to logic and science and accept the Young Earth cult beliefs. But the Lord showed me that, although the present heavens and earth were, indeed, "made" in six literal days, as the Bible states in Exodus 20:11, there was more to the story than just that. They were made from what was already here.

My thesis is that the geologic evidence (not theory) of the earth and the Holy Bible can not possibly contradict. After all, if God made it all then it all has to agree.

There is so much good science (without supporting evolution) that proves the ancient age of the earth, while at the same time the literal words of the Bible do not support any meaning for the six days other than six, literal, 24 hour days. (The Day-Age theory won't work, saying that the Genesis account runs close to the sequence of geologic time won't work either, and certainly assigning 1000 years to each of those days won't work either.)

Consequently, it boils down to only one of two choices:
1.) The earth and everything is only 6,000 years old, or
2.) the earth is very old and the Bible starts at a point in time very recently, skipping over a lot of time. In resolving why the latter would be so, there we must make the final appeal to the Bible, not science.

The wording of Genesis 1:2 is the deciding point:


Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Without alledging that the Hebrew words mean something else, and that the English translation is accurate, notice that several things already exist before God says "let there be light"
1. The earth
2. Darkness
3. The Deep
4. Waters

By your interpretation, these things are formed on the first day, before God says "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3. And by your interpretation, we also must throuw in the creation of the angelic host, time, and whatever. That is a lot of "suppossing" and assumptions, don't you think?

Now, the earth and waters are physical things, which exisit only in time and space. Therefore, time was already there. The deep was there, so there was already space. So if there is time, and space, and matter, then the laws of physics are already in place and a intregal part of the e=mc^2 equation requires the existence of LIGHT if matter, space and time are in place. There is no necessity to "create" light, because it has already been created.
Therefore, the reference "Let there be light" means for light to shine. Why? Because there is also darkness present at Genesis 1:2.

Now, if God is light:
1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

... then why is that darkness there in the first place?????

There are two kinds of darkness, physical and spiritual, and the Hebrew can convey that duel meaning, where our English can't. In the Spanish Bible that darkness is translated in the plural sense, allowing for both kinds of darkness (see, I'm not a KJV ONLY ).

The very presence of darkness at that point in time and space indicates a evil presence in the cosmos. And that tells me that Satan had already been formed, sinned, and destroyed the world he was originally charged with stewardship. The six days of Genesis MUST be a re-creation. It makes theological sense, it gives sense to the geology of the earth, and it does not break the scriptures.

Ok, you asked. It is for those reasons and those questions that I cannot subscribe to the full blown Young Earth cult doctrine of everything being only 6,000 years old. That is only a partial truth, according to our Bible itself.


Another verse used to support the gap theory is Genesis 1:28, which in the King James translation states “... Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it ...”
The criticism has been made that the word “replenish” is today a recognized mistranslation of the Hebrew. All modern translations translate this word “fill.”

Just one question. Is the word "replenish" at Genesis 9:1:
Ge 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
...also a mistranslation?

JOHN WELLS
The correct understanding in both verses is "fill." Most modern translations testify to this.


WORD DIGGER
What I find extremely interesting is the fact that the KJV translators translated the Hebrew word 'male' differently, and only five (5) verses apart:

Ge 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, andblet fowl multiply in the earth.
(Compare with below)
Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This begs the question of why the different renderings, so close together, by a body of translators who most certainly knew the Hebrew quite well and were also well aware of the implied meanings they were giving in their English translation. To attribute this to an unintentional mis-translation seems to me an argument lacking any real merit. Surely, having also rendered 'male' in Genesis 9:1 as "replenish" instead of fill...

Ge 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

... and obviously being gentlemen of intelligence who would foresee the effect their rendering of 'male' as replenish in the context of Noah and his sons REpopulating the earth, it seems clear to any reasonable person that the translation and choice of words were most certainly intentional and well thought through.

In connection with this line of thinking, the Hebrew word for heavens, which is plural, and the translators certainly knew it was plural, was translated as singular in the English in Genesis 1:2 and plural in Genesis 2:1. (Which is also called a "mis-translation by modern scholars) Why would the KJV translators (all 50+ of them) agree to that, unless they were attempting to call attention to a point of doctrinal difference?

Regardless of what the majority of modern scholars say, in respect to technicalities, I refuse to accept there were mis-translations. I am of the firm conviction that they were deliberate, and for a specific purpose.

A common argument against the Gap Theory, found parroted on many pages across the internet by the Young Earth, states:
The gap theory was developed mainly for the purpose of accommodating the great ages demanded by evolutionary geologists. This idea was first popularized by a Scottish theologian. Thomas Chalmers, early in the 19th century. In this country, the famous Scofield Study Bible made it an almost universally accepted teaching among fundamentalists.

In reference to my previous post on the KJV's translation of 'male' ("replenish" vs. "fill"), the singular and plural use of "heaven" (Genesis 1:1) vs. "heavens" at (Genesis 2:1), the YEs seem to overlook the fact that the KJV was translated and completed by 1611. Chalmers did not put forth his theory until the 1800s. In addition, at the time the KJV was translated, the science of geology had not started and there was no questions about the age of the earth being raised by scientists. The FACT that the translation was made prior to Chalmers and the birth of geology speaks volumes.

By example, look at the prophecy in Revelation:
Re 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

Now who back in 1611, 1800, 1900 would be able to even understand or comprehend how peoples of all nations and kindreds across the earth could all see the dead bodies laying in the street in Jerusalem? But today, the verse has well understood meaning, as I can click on a link on my home computer and see the court before the outer wall of the Temple Mount live, and in almost real time, by just clicking This Link!! http://www.aish.com/wallcam/

By example, when in Chalmer's time men began to question the age of the earth, the Lord had seen fit that the Bible's explanation had been prepared over 200 years in advance. Indeed, the truth was always there since the canon of the scriptures was compiled. But until our modern times, it was still sealed.


THOMAS CASSIDYThomas Cassidy
The word "replenish" meant, in 1611, simply "to fill." It has since changed meaning "to refill". Just look the word up in a good dictionary with a philogical section.

Remit does not mean to mit again.
Record does not mean to cord again.
etc.


ED
[regarding the argument concerning ‘replenish’]

Word Usage
Theistic Evolutionists confuse the interpretation of words and apply interpretation rules inconsistently. Rules applied to Genesis 1 and 2 are not applied anywhere else in scripture. Two examples of this are the words ‘heavens’ and ‘replenish’ used in Genesis.

First look at the word ‘heavens’.
Theistic Evolutionists argue that the plural word for heavens proves that more than one heaven was created. However, the first rule of biblical interpretation is to compare scripture with scripture. If someone zeros in on a selected phrase and discounts the rest of the Bible, they will fall into error. Therefore, let’s look at the rest of scripture and see if more light is shed on the usage of the word ‘heavens’. In Genesis 1 and 2, the Bible references the heavens. Genesis 2:1 says, ‘thus the heavens and the earth were finished’. Gap theorists point to this as proof that more than one heaven was created. However, we see this term outside of Genesis. 2 Peter 3:7 says:
But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Notice that ‘heavens’ is not past tense, but present tense. The heavens are now preserved by the same word.
Hebrews 8:1 shows another present tense usage:
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

God’s throne is now in the heavens. Someone might argue that this is Greek and the words are different because Genesis is written in Hebrew. Let’s look at the Old Testament passages that also use the same Hebrew word found in the creation account in Genesis. A quick look up of the word yields many, many references. Psalms gives glory to God and uses the heavens as God’s throne. Look at these two passages:
Psalm 2
4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The LORD shall hold them in derision.
Psalm 8:1
How excellent is Your name in all the earth, Who have set Your glory above the heavens!
3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?

Notice what the Bible says here. God sits in the ‘heavens’ – same Hebrew word used in Genesis. When I consider Your heavens – the Psalmist is marveling at the creation work that he sees. ‘Heavens’ is also the same Hebrew word. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the word ‘heavens’ is referenced as existing now. It is NEVER referenced as something that has passed away. Why doesn’t the rule for interpretation of Genesis 1-2 apply to the rest of scripture?

Some people argue as though the King James Version is the original scripture. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. To dig in to find word usages, we must go to the source, not the KJV.

Replenish the earth.
The argument of many Theistic Evolutionists is that the word ‘replenish’ is used in both Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1. In Genesis 1:28, when man was created, he was told to ‘replenish’ the earth. In Genesis 9, Noah is commanded to replenish the earth because man has been destroyed off the earth. Gap believers say that this proves that the earth was destroyed prior to Adam. However, once again we must compare scripture to scripture and look at the original word usage.

Genesis 1:28 uses the word ‘male'’ (pronounced maw-lay). The KJV translates this into the word ‘replenish’ while most other translations use the word ‘fill’ in this passage. This Hebrew word can accurately be translated into ‘fill, full, fulfill, consecrate, accomplish, replenish, overflow, and satisfy’. In fact, the KJV translates the word ‘male’ into the word ‘fill’ in Genesis 1:22, ‘multiply and fill [male’] the waters’. The KJV uses this same word as fill throughout the Old Testament. Exodus 10:6, the locust ‘shall fill [male’] your houses’. Psalm 17:14, ‘whose belly thou fillest [male’] with hidden treasures’. There are dozens of other passages using this word where it is not translated as ‘replenish’.

The important point is that we should look at scripture in light of scripture and when there is doubt, go to the Greek or Hebrew text. To believe that God has hidden messages in the Bible that contradicts what He plainly states in the Bible is false. We are commanded to study so that we can accurately divide the word of truth. As we will see in the rest of this study, evolution is in direct, unmistakable violation against the plainly stated truth of God’s word.

To view this entire article, go to http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/theistic_evolution.shtml

 

[Administrator2]

[aDMINISTRATOR: THE FOLLOWING IS FROM ANOTHER THREAD REGARDING THE SAME SUBJECT.]

TOOLMAN
What are the thoughts on puting the fall of Satan between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. I have always believed in the Gap Position, but I have come across people who do not.


THOMAS CASSIDY
The fall of Lucifer could not possibly have happened prior to Genesis 1:31.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

God said that everything He made was still good on the 6th day. So, either
1. Lucifer had not yet fallen,
2. God lied,
3. God is a terrible judge of what is good and evil!

I vote for #1. I will leave #2 & #3 to the theological liberals, modernists, and unbelievers.


JOSEPH BOTWINICK
Option #4:

The Biblical option:

Lucifer was the King of Babylon and never was intended to mean Satan and has been misinterpreted by Christianity for a real long time.


THOMAS CASSIDY
So, Joseph, you deny all the events concerning the first 11 chapters of Genesis, including the fall of Satan?

Or are you just quibbling over the name "Lucifer" which, by the way, is virtually identical to the word in Genesis describing the serpent. Lucifer - heylel = "shining", serpent - nachash = "shining one." Different Hebrew words pointing to the same thing, the shining appearence of the serpent, and of Lucifer.

To deny the typical aspects of Isaiah 14:12 seems a bit naive me me. It is well known that the Assyrians worshipped a "god" who was male at sunrise and female at sunset, and was exemplified by the planet Venus, which was both the morning and evening star depending on the time of the year. "Ben-shachar" (sun of the dawn), and called "son of Eos" in classical mythology due to its rising before the sun and swims in the morning light.

There is no doubt the king of Babylon is in mind here as the Babylonian culture reached back to the "dawn of time" (in their estimation, of course), and the astrological character of the Babylonians. But it seems patently obvious that there is also a retrospective glance being cast at the self-deification of the king of Babylon, in which he is the antitype of the devil and his attempted self-deification, and perhaps even a type of the Antichrist.


PASTOR LARRY
Thomas,
While I agree with your position here, I am curious as to where you found "shining one" as a meaning for nachash. I have just now looked at BDB, NIDOTTE, TWOT, and TDNT and have not found any reference to it. The closest seems to be the III meaning which is copper or bronze. Do you have source that gives "shining one" in the semantic range of nachash?


Helen
Grammatically, there is no gap between the first two verses of Genesis. Verse 1 gives a statement of fact and verse two starts to explain it. Aside from the grammatical error in presuming a gap there, there are some geological and theological problems with it.

1. If there were a flood/destruction there, we should have evidence of it in the geological strata of the earth. It is not there.

2. Ezekiel 28:12-19 is an address to Satan via the King of Tyre. In these verses we find that Satan was created to be the guardian cherub of Eden (this is probably why Eve trusted him...). Thus he could not have rebelled against God until after Eden was established for Adam and Eve.

3. As mentioned, Paul states specificially that death is the result of the sin of one man (Adam) and that it is because of Adam that all sinned. Adam was created the sixth day. Therefore there was no sin or death in the world before that, thus eliminating the gap again.