Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers V


 

Question #1:  

In his lesson about the day 2 of re-creation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9od_0-H3wQY) Chuck Missler presents an argument that for grammatical reasons the verb should be rendered "had become", and the reason given is the word order. What is your take on this?

Response #1: 

I couldn't find what you mention; I did find that he dismisses the "so-called gap theory" and wants to put dinosaurs in Eden and/or thereafter (!?). I do prefer "had become" for Genesis 1:2, but the key thing about the word order is the disjunctive waw construction here which produces the "but", that is, the strong contrast between verses one and two. "Had", an English pluperfect, fits the situation better (by a little) than "became", but this is only a question of relative time. The sequence and the narrative show clearly in any interpretation that verse two follows verse one in time as well as sequence – though there are some hyper-liberal interpretations which want to make verse one a "pre-summary" based on supposed Ugaritic parallels (!?). The point is the difference in situations, namely, the results of judgment in verse two seen after the fact of the situation of perfect creation in verse one; past or pluperfect in English might both represent what occurs in Hebrew (which has no such formal distinctions apart from context).

Question #2:  

Missler uses Exodus 20:8-11 as a passage proving that Genesis days were 24 hour days. Do you agree with this?

Response #2: 

Exodus 20:11 is indeed a good passage to keep in mind when dealing with anyone who wants to allegorize the very clear language of Genesis chapter one. "And there was morning and there was evening: one day" (Gen.1:5) – how much clearer one could make this, I'm not sure.

Question #3:  

In his explanation of Genesis 1:5, Missler proposes that the reason why erev precedes boqer is that these words stand for the progression from darkness as a time of chaos and indiscernible forms to light as symbolising order. He supports his argument with the point that there is no erev and boker on the seventh day, so the original meaning must have been different than "evening" and "morning". What do you think?

Response #3: 

I don't see how the conclusion is related to the argument – except through the assumption of many intervening proofs which are not evident here. Evening/darkness is first because it was first in the Lord's reconstruction of the world after the Genesis gap. The world was of course created with light and no darkness, but the darkness is part of the judgment on Satan's revolt. This is also why Hebrew days start at evening: the plan of God is light coming into darkness, not the other way around. The reason for no "evening" on the Sabbath seventh day of re-creation is meant to be symbolic of the light that will suffuse the eternal kingdom where there will never again be any night or darkness once that wonderful day dawns.

Question #4:   

In Angelology you wrote:

5. 1) The presence of the heavens and earth in place at Genesis 1:3 shows this is re-creation: As God begins to work on the earth in Genesis 1:3, earth (and the heavens in which it exists) is already in place, an impossibility unless this is a re-creation (for if it describes the original creation, where then did the earth come from?).

I think I understand your reasoning here, but it's a type of argument that requires one to first accept that there is a gap. Otherwise, a person not accepting the Genesis gap would probably respond that the earth was created in verse 1, it was described in verse 2 (and of course its description does show the judgment and the gap, but it's a teaching that many are unaware of or unwilling to accept) and in verse 3 God begins all the remaining work. So what I mean here is that this point is easy to accept for those who have already agreed that there is a gap rather than it being an argument that one can use to show that there is in fact a gap. Or so it seems to me.

Response #4: 

In fact, the alternative interpretation (by someone who does not accept the gap) puts a person in the position of defending the un-defendable: God created the universe in verse one. That means it was created already by the time we get to verse two. That means that whatever is happening in verse two cannot be original creation; it is not "the first thing" God did, but a later development. So time has gone by when we get to verse three with the result that "day one" can't be actually the start creation – that is an impossible contradiction otherwise with what verse one and two say. Additionally, in verse two we are told that all is darkness and all is devastation. Does God create darkness? He is light. Does God create things already destroyed? Everything He does is good. Does God need six days to create and do all the rest of the things He is said to have created and done in those six day? He is omnipotent. God also created the angels, and some rebelled following Satan. Since man is created on the sixth day, on which of the prior five days were the angels created and when did they fall from grace? And what about the fossil record? Did Adam "ride on dinosaurs"?

To defend the incorrect position that the six days are part of original creation runs afoul of 1) the very first verse of the Bible where it says quite clearly that all things were already created before verse two where the situation likewise before the following six days is described proving some interval; 2) the grammar of verse two which contrasts original creation with the status described in verse two (a more involved point, admittedly, but that is an apologetics issue, not a truth issue); 3) the nature and character of God (darkness / devastation being incompatible with what He must have originally created); and 4) the necessary timelines of both angelic history (wherein Satan eventually gains a following and rebels – had to have taken more than a day or two) and the very old pre-human earth about which we know both from scripture and science. Since in my opinion anyone reading the Hebrew text will see the problems with the alternative to the gap and also the solution (namely that there is a gap) with relative ease, clinging to the idea that there is no gap (when it is present in the grammar and the narrative) is a mark of preferring stubborn traditionalism (from whatever motive) to the obvious truth of the Word of God – especially after someone has explained the point in great detail.

Question #5: 

In https://ichthys.com/mail-Opposition%20to%20the%20Genesis%20Gap.html you wrote:

One exception, new to me here, is the "death before sin" argument which is rather odd because Morris has gotten the logic completely wrong. The gap posits divine judgment as a result of Satan's sin; so Satan's fall would precede the cataclysm and the gap which reflects it.

I think what he meant was that there was no sin before man came into the world. Should we take Romans 5:12 as referring to humankind only?

Also you wrote:

I cannot understand this argument. I believe in the Genesis Gap, but I'm not sure how this points defends it. Someone who doesn't accept the Genesis Gap may simply say that verse 1 describes creation and verse 2 follows it temporally without anything happening in between, so the heavens and the earth are already there. One can say that verse 2 simply provides more detail about the original creation.

Response #5: 

On the first paragraph, yes, I think we can safely say that Paul is speaking of mankind for the "world" he has in mind is the one re-created for human habitation after the Genesis gap.

As to your second question, Genesis 1:6-8 describes God's refurbishing of the heavens . . . which were already created in verse one. Also, if the earth is created in verse one, then why is it "formless and void" in verse two? To solve these and related questions opponents of the gap are forced to say either that verse one is a "summary statement" requiring a convoluted and wrong-headed appeal to supposed parallels in other NW Semitic languages, as with the Anchor Bible Commentary on Genesis (obviously, in all human logic summaries come afterwards, not before), or else to accept that original creation was imperfect and in need of six days of further work. From any fair literary assessment, merely seeing days one through six as "follow on" construction doesn't work . . . at least for those who are taking the words to mean what they actually say. Your argumentative question is as good as it gets in terms of opposing the gap, but consider: if "verse 2 simply provides more detail about the original creation", then where did the earth come from in verse two where it is described as being in existence? Clearly, verse one talks about the creation of the heavens and the earth, but in verse two they are already in existence – that is as big a difference as I can imagine and it can't be explained by this alternative theory; all such theories do is obfuscate this and other important points so as to sound plausible for those who haven't drawn the inescapable conclusions: 1) if the heavens and the earth were created in verse one and if they are described as in existence in verse two then verse one and verse two cannot be talking about the same event, and 2) if the heavens and the earth are created in verse one, and if God only creates perfection, then the description of destruction and darkness in verse two must represent some catastrophe intervening between verses one and two – the Genesis gap.

Question #6:  

Good evening Dr.,

Genesis 1:2b: "and darkness was on the face of the deep."

I have just start rereading your SR series and was reviewing Genesis 1:2a. My NKJV bible states the word "was" is not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic. Is that correct?

If so, what is the literal translation?

Thank you like always in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Response #6: 

As to translating the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2, I notice that the NKJV does have the word "was", albeit in italics. The KJV convention, followed by the NKJV, is to italicize words which, while not actually present in the Hebrew or Greek, need to be put in to satisfy English convention.

There is no such thing as a "literal" translation because no two languages are anywhere near identical in the way they work so as to be able to merely render one word in one language with a comparable word in another and come up thereby with a translation which truly reflects the meaning of the original – or is even understandable (anyone who has any serious experience in any foreign language knows this principle well).

Hebrew and Greek both often leave out things that are naturally understood from the context. The verb "to be" is one of the most common things omitted when there is no question about what is to be supplied. This is a question of linguistic economy, not meaning. In other words, if an English translation left out the word "was" here, it would be a poor translation (not to mention difficult to understand): linguistically, "darkness" is the subject and the phrase "ruined and despoiled" is the predicate. In these sorts of sentences in English we actually do have to put in the appropriate form verb "to be", but that is not the case in all languages (such as Hebrew and Greek). Incidentally English does this too – as in this sentence: "does" what? Leaves out the main verb when it is obvious and replaces it with "does" "do" or "did"; the full expression would be "English leaves out things too".

Hope this answers your question!

In our dear Lord Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #7: 

Hi Bob,

I noticed that, in your latest emails, you were asked whether or not science was God's handiwork, and you said no.

I would say that science is to natural revelation as the Scofield reference Bible is to special revelation. Is Scofield infallible? No. Is it Satanic falsehood? While the contents of Scofield are not 100% truth, I wouldn't say that therefore it is falsehood. So is the same thing about science.

Bill Nye and cohorts exist, but so do unbelieving Jews who come up with valid interpretations of scriptures.

Sincerely,

Response #7:

In my observation, science is a humanistic endeavor, proceeding on the basis of deduction derived purely from physical phenomena.  It is entirely divorced from the spiritual realm.  As such it cannot be of God. The material structure of the universe is certainly of God, and if there were a pure search for knowledge about that, there might be an argument. However, while the Holy Spirit inspires and guides the attempts of Christians who wish to know the truth, that is not true of unbelievers who are intellectually interested in certain aspects of the material creation. Not saying that believers can't "do science" or benefit from discoveries. If a believer is a scientist then he/she should do a good job just as if he/she were a tailor or a garbage man. Making science anything special and suggesting that "the search for [physical] knowledge" is anything somehow "holy" or important to God is a mistake. Indeed, in all too many respects it seems to be turning more and more into a secular attempt to replace God in the minds and hearts of those foolish to put more faith in science than in God and His truth.

In Jesus our Lord,

Bob L.

Question #8: 

I read the emails you posted this week, and thought I would attempt to offer some encouragement. I emailed you several times a few years ago with reservations to the Genesis Gap. I'm not sure I ever said so, but I now vehemently defend the truth of the Genesis Gap. The exegesis you provided was invaluable, and the prehistoric fall of Satan is reinforced throughout scripture. The more I study the more I realize the Bible holds more vast and incredible knowledge than I previously thought. I hope you have an excellent week.

Response #8: 

It's good to hear from you, my friend. I'm of course delighted to hear that these materials have been of some use to you in your spiritual growth. There is nothing more important than walking closer to our Lord day by day (and helping others to do the same), and that is of course only possible through hearing and believing the actual truth.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is our all in all.

Bob L.

Question #9:  

Hi. My names Lucas. I appreciate your defense of the Genesis Gap Doctrine. I wanted to share this link:

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13306/assessments-of-the-evidence-for-the-gap-theory-reading-of-genesis-11-2

I would appreciate it if you would read the link and respond to the gap opponents argument, specifically on the Hebrew grammar, since I myself am no expert on the language. Thanks.

Response #9: 

Good to make your acquaintance. I had a look at this link, and the only thing I found there was a translation of Genesis 1:1-2 accompanied by a Hebrew text and transliteration. However, the translation is incorrect in part and also misleading (and there is little that cannot be "proved" with scripture by mistranslating it): the "but" in v.2 is omitted, which is incorrect, and the verb hayetah is translated "was", which is misleading, whereas "had become" is more helpful to understanding what the verse actually says – even that would be alright if the translation made the chronological sequence (obvious in the Hebrew) clear: 1) original creation (v.1); 2) situation of devastation following a gap (v.2); 3) commencement of re-creation (v.3).

There are many links at Ichthys where this issue is discussed from many angles. It's all too much to repeat, but here is a list of links (which will lead to yet others):

The Grammar behind the Genesis Gap

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers II

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers III

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers IV

The Genesis Gap (SR 2)

Please feel free to write me back about any of the above.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #10: 

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I happened onto your Website from a link of another Biblical site. I have just begun your studies and have finished Part 1 and Part 2 of SR. I have found them to be most interesting and eye opening especially Part 2 - The Genesis Gap. About 36 years ago I purchased a Finis Jennings Dake bible where he discusses what he called the Gap Theory. I dismissed his study up until today, when I finished your study, which was very thorough and well thought with many scripture references. Your study has answered a variety of questions for me that I always wondered about, but with no answers.

I found one Bible translation of Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2 which says "

The Scriptures (ISR 1998)

1In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. 2And the earth came to be (or the earth became) formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the waters.

Among all the documentation you presented with Genesis 1:2 and the translation you provided, along with this version I found on the Web, I am totally convinced that this is not what many call "The Gap Theory", but is actually true. I really want to thank you for your tedious effort and study that you have put into these Bible Studies and getting them available. You are truly a blessing to me and to hopefully many, many, more, for God is really using you, and to Him be the Glory.

I have also finished the study on Hamartiology: the study of sin (part 3B) which was a fascinating study, as I am sure all the others are as well.

I have been studying the Bible daily for 36 years, and am still learning.

Please continue your work and God Bless and Keep you.

Your Brother in Christ,

Response #10: 

You're most welcome.

Thanks much for your good words – and do feel free to write any time.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #11:  

Hello--I was wondering if you could look up the etymology of a Hebrew word for me? It's in Gen. 1:4, where it says that the Spirit of God moved over the face of the deep. I think it is the word "rachaph." Now, Strong's says as one of its meanings "brood"--not like think deeply, but sort of hover or flutter over it, the way a broody hen would over her chicks (I wrote this part; Strong's didn't, obviously). Anyway, I was wondering if it is true, that "brood" in this sense, like "hover" is one of the meanings of "rachaph" ? A Mormon on the CARM boards says it is NOT one of its meanings.

Also, is this the same word used in Deut. 32:11, just a different "voice"? I think the KJV has "fluttering" there.

Thanks in advance. Yours in Christ Jesus,

Response #11: 

You mean Genesis 1:2. Here's how I translate the verse:

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

"Hover" is fine (so NKJV, NIV, ESV, e.g.). You are correct about the verb. It only occurs three times in the OT: here (Gen.1:2), Deut.32:11 (where an eagle is said to do this action "over its chicks"), and Jer.23:9 (where the prophet's bones do this [tremble?]; but there it is in the qal, whereas the other two instances are intensive / piel stem). The fact that the Spirit (and an eagle in Deut.32:11) are both said to be doing this action (factitive use of the verb rather than intransitive as in Jer.23:9), does indicate that "move over" or "hover over" or "brood over" is what is meant; all three translations (I wasn't able to find any renderings substantially different from these) are essentially the same in terms of basic meaning. The only difference would be whether or not one is actively trying to bring out the metaphor that seems to lie behind the verb's core meaning as indicated by Deut.32:11. Not sure what denying the possibility of "brood over" would accomplish for your misguided friend.

What is really going on here is an example of the the restraining ministry of the Spirit (see the link), preventing any further use of the earth following the satanic rebellion – until the Lord's six day re-construction of it.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #12:  

Oh, sorry, yes. Gen. 1:2. By why do you have "ruined and despoiled"? And "CAME to be"? I always thought God created the building blocks, like air, water, and land, with which to create everything else, but before He did that, everything was empty and void. But "ruined" and "despoiled" makes it sound as if God did that. And God wouldn't ruin anything when creating, would He? Even the building blocks? Just wondering.

Thanks for the analysis. Some Mormons just like to argue for the sake of arguing. A friend of mine on the boards just happened to write "brooded" over the face of the deep, while discussing a verse with this Mormon. And he took exception to her use of "brooded". She was using the Amplified Bible (which I find annoying, but oh, well...) and it had "brooded" as a secondary translation. Strong's has "brooded" as a primitive root for the verb. I know Strong's isn't meant to be a wealth of translation commentary, but it does have the basic meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek.

Thanks again.

Response #12: 

On Genesis 1:1 vs. 1:2, this is a rather involved issue. Suffice it to say that we have original creation in verse one, just like it says. Verse two starts with a disjunctive clause (a very strong "but"), and then describes the earth in terms of devastation occasioned by divine judgment – that is what tohu wabhohu always means. God never creates anything dark and devastated. The situation in verse two is the result of Satan's revolt and the Lord's judgment upon it; the seven days are the re-construction of the earth and heavens to allow once more for corporal life. If interested, the best one-stop-shopping for getting into this issue is my part 2 of the SR series: "The Genesis Gap" (at the link).

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #13:  

Please read this Professor. Someone I know sent this to me.

Response #13: 

Good to hear from you, my friend. I don't disagree with the premise here. As you know, the second part of the Satanic Rebellion series says essentially the same thing. Of course we know right from Genesis that the devil has certain powers in this regard because it is prophesied as early as Genesis 3:15 that it is the devil's "seed" (antichrist) who will provide the ultimate opposition – and "seed" is very clearly talking about this type of manipulation (as in the nephilim of Genesis chapter six). The extensive fossil record also invites this deduction.

Two caveats. First, I wouldn't want to use the Greek vocabulary as this person does to make this argument (i.e., contrasting bios with zoe); these words are not used in scripture with the sort of technical differentiation alleged here. Second, while I do think that the Egyptian magicians were doing something beyond sleight of hand (see the link), whatever they did beyond what is naturally possible would have been entirely the province of demons – and scripture doesn't tell us how they did what they did. So I do not find this passage conclusive as to what Satan can or can't do. It seems to me that the dinosaurs and the nephilim are about as complicated as one can get, biologically speaking. Satan cannot create a spirit, however (which is why nephilim are not judged at the last judgment: they have no "image of God"). The reason the devil and his comrades don't do more is not a lack of ability or know-how; rather, it is fear of judgment for violating God's ground rules for this present conflict. Those involved in the Genesis six attempt to pervert the biology of the human race were thrown into the Abyss, and the demons fear this immensely (Lk.8:31). Satan had to be given permission before he could destroy Job's family and possessions and before he could curse Job's flesh. If there were no divine restrictions, the devil could make very short work of the human race and thus "win" the conflict in which we are now all involved. But he is not allowed to do so; that is the lid on his activities.

p.s., I note that this site you link from has a lot of wild speculation about current events, and also that they are making money off of ads – and the more "interesting" the stuff is (translate, less scripture, more speculation), the more money; in other words, seems to me to be a big conflict of interest.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #14:   

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

So good to hear from you. Thank you for keeping me up to date on the new releases. I will be able to catch up on your latest this weekend.

It's been a while since I have read your "Satanic Rebellion" and it's been on my mind to reread it soon. I don't recall your addressing anything about the "gap theory" or how Satan came to be on the earth itself and in the Garden of Eden. Was he already ruler of this world/earth, and had to connive to stay in power when Adam and Eve were created since dominion would be given to them? Does Atlantis fit into this? Can you tell me also if you have done any research/writings on the New Millennial period and what it might look like? It would be occurring right after the battle of Armageddon and its great destruction and I've wondered what any remaining humans would be living through? If you can direct me to any writing you've done on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

May God bless you and keep you safe!

Response #14: 

Part 2 of the Satanic Rebellion series is all about the gap (see the link), and there is an abundance of material on the site about this subject (here is a recent link which will lead to many more: "Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers IV").

Along with the other issues you ask about, you will find the Millennium covered in the posting just announced (it's also in CT 6: "The Millennium and New Jerusalem").

There is no Atlantis, however. Plato made this place up out of thin air for one of his dialogues. However, there was an ancient maritime civilization on the Aegean island of Santorini which was destroyed by a volcanic eruption (one of its main cities, Akrotiri, has been excavated in the manner of Pompei). It seems likely to me that the memories of this place and its destruction lie behind the myth later gilded by Plato.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #15: 

Hello Sir, do you think Satan made the dinosaurs? V/r

Response #15: 

I think it's probable. Here are a few links on that:

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, Noah, et al.

Dinosaurs?

Satan and dinosaurs

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #16:  

Question about the fossil record. I came across a gentleman on YouTube by the name of Eric Dubay, he believes in the flat earth model and has provided 'proof' of his assertions. He claims as well that there were no dinosaurs that walked the earth and the remains that are discovered are actually manufactured constructs that in the end is a lie. Simply they never existed and fossils are man made 'bones' aimed to deceive the public of creatures that indeed did not exist. There is no full skeletal remains and what we are to believe what they looked like was taken from an irregular bone found by it's originators of the lie. So while reading Part 1 of the series, when I came across the fossil record you have (brief mention of it) it got my head going. I'm curious to know what are your thoughts on this and even though archeology is not your specialty have you ever expanded on this or have any trusted references to refer me too?

Response #16: 

Having found fossils myself out west, and having seen others that people who couldn't have possibly been part of some grand conspiracy had found, it is not possible, from my perspective, for the fossil record to have been manufactured. Given the vast numbers of people in academia alone who deal with these matters, positing a conspiracy among all of these people over many centuries which would actually work is as unbelievable to me as evolution. I deal with academics as part of my job (being one myself), and believe me when I say that it would be easier to herd thousands of cats than to get even a majority of them on the same page for something like this. That doesn't mean they are right about their theories regarding what has been found; merely that these things have indeed been found (regardless of what they really are, how they might have looked in life, and when they actually lived). As I am always quick to say, the gap that Genesis places between original creation in Genesis 1:1 and the devastated earth of Genesis 1:2 no doubt does explain the fossil record, but I don't pretend to know the length of time of the gap, nor how much time elapsed before the world was judged by the Lord, nor the specifics of the satanic manipulation of what the Lord had originally created. That is the difference between teaching the Bible on the one hand and merely using it to promote or support a pet theory on the other.

Question #17: 

Hey Bob,

I trust you are doing well, today! Are you familiar with Dr. Gerald Schroeder? Recently, I came across Professor Gerald Schroeder, author of the books, "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of God. He attempts to explain 'In the beginning...' and compare 'science discovered' to the Torah scriptures. Quite fascinating! Young earth creationists have their work cut out for them.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRl8vBRNc58

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjtHqxhwNgk

What I found most intriguing, is how he compared the speed of light traveling exponentially from the beginning of creation to the creation of Adam, the 5 states of matter and the 'evening and the morning' in the 24 hr earth day. The Creator looking forward in time (God's perspective) and Mankind looking backward (Man's perspective of the Creators handiwork) thru time. How 15 billion years of creation is explained in 6 literal earth days. If you are interested and have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts on his theories/conclusions? My analogy: 'How the acorn becomes the Oak'.

Forever learning in the sight of our Lord and Saviour, Yeshua (Jesus, the Christ of the Father).

Response #17:

Good to hear from you as always, my friend.

I've never heard of this person. Certainly, the Church is in need of good apologists who understand science and the Bible . . . I say again, and the Bible.

Here's what I find most problematic: "How 15 billion years of creation is explained in 6 literal earth days".

This is wrong. Absolutely wrong, and dangerously so. The six days are not an allegory. They are literal. What happened in those six days? Precisely what the Bible says happened. The critical point that this author fails to grasp is that the six days occur after creation – on the other side of a gap of time of unknown length, the "Genesis gap". Thus the six days are not creation but re-creation; that is, the six days are God's repairing of the earth and the universe from the devastation of judgment following the satanic rebellion. Creation occurs in verse one of Genesis chapter one – just as it says. Verse two finds the situation bleak, dark, devastated – and that is when God begins to refit the universe and the earth for human habitation as the solution to that rebellion through the creation of mankind. In between verses one and two occurs the "Genesis gap" – which is very clear in the Hebrew and even discernible in most English versions, even the ones which deliberately try to obfuscate this key point.

Since the underpinning to this author's whole approach is flawed, I would think he'd need to get this critical issue straightened out before being able to be an effective apologist. As things stand, leading Christians to see very straightforward language in the Bible as "just a story to explain things" (the effect of this point of view) will result in seeing much else in the Bible as "not really literal", "not really meant to be taken seriously" and "open to interpretation".

I think we've talked about this before so you probably have the links to where the gap issue is considered at Ichthys, but if not please email me back and I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #18: 

So, Bob, as I re-read your response, I want to make sure I fully understand your explanation and position.

1) The initial creation, in the beginning, God made the heavens, the earth and all the host of them, could have taken place over a 15 billion year period, but the reconstruction of the universe and the creation of Mankind took only 6 literal earth days. Genesis 1 and 2.

2) Did you listen to Dr. Schroeder presentation Part 1 and 2?

3) And that the angelic host could have been created eons ago, in the beginning with heaven and earth, and Mankind was God's response to the angelic transgression against God and His Eternal Only begotten Son, eons later (which we believe is the beginning of Adamic mankind) near the end of 6 literal reconstruction days of the earth.

Did I get it right? This is so exciting!

It was indeed your response to me (as in the way God judged the devil's rebellion and in the way He provided a solution to it in the reconstruction of the universe and the creation of mankind) that got my attention.

Considering most Christians I know don't understand the 'Gap Theory' or ruin-restoration explanation of the, as you so plainly state it, - in the reconstruction of the universe and the creation of mankind), in 6 literal earth days, what is it going to take for mainstream Judeo-Christians or followers of Christ to receive this understanding? It appears

the evidence of an angelic war is all around us, our moon, Mars, etc., and that is just in our solar system. What about interstellar space?

It appears difficult enough for mankind to believe there is a Creator God, let alone an 'adversary' or devil angelic transgressor, from the beginning.

Response #18: 

Apologies for the delay -- busy weekend with a longer-than-usual posting to do.

As to your questions:

1) That's right! The time issue is impossible to know since the way science measures time backwards may be flawed.

2) I'm sorry I haven't had time to do so.

3) That's right too! Again, we don't know how long it was before Satan decided to foment revolt, or how long he worked on it before he "pulled it off", or how long the conflict went on once he did, or how long the universe was left in a "blacked-out" state thereafter. We only know the start point and the re-start point, and how long the Lord took – for symbolic reasons – to refurbish the earth and bring mankind into the picture as the solution to the conflict – other creatures made in the image of God who would (some of us) respond to God's grace so as to be saved.

Keep running your good race, my friend! The truth is indeed always very exciting!

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #19:  

Does Genesis 13 undermine Gap Theory?

http://creation.com/genesis-13-undermines-gap-theory

Response #19: 

First of all, there is no such thing as a "gap theory". Genesis 1:2 presents a very clear difference between the original creation of verse one and the ruination of verse two. That is obvious even from every English translation I have ever seen (although I prefer my own since it makes the Hebrew grammar clearly). If there is any "theory" going around it is the "the Bible does not mean what it literally says at Genesis 1:1 or at Genesis 1:2 or possibly in both places; this is really only a fairy-tale-like description which we smart people have to take with more than a grain of salt" theory.

Author of the piece you link to attempts to say that because he finds the grammar of Genesis 13:1 vs. Genesis 13:2 similar to that of the situation in Genesis chapter one, he feels justified in alternatively explain the passage in question. Now no one is saying there aren't explanatory noun clauses elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. But not all of them are "disjunctive" – meaning some of them are additive (as in Genesis 13:2, translate "now Abraham [was]"), while some of them express contrast (as in Genesis 1:2, translate "but the earth had become . . . "). How do we tell the difference? In a disjunctive "but" type noun clause, if there is a verb in the clause, it will not come first; rather some other element, often the subject as at Genesis 1:2, will come first. The problem for Author is that there is no verb present at all in the clause he suggests as a parallel. No doubt Author will say that we have the verb chabhebh, but really what we have is the adjective chabhebh. Were this the verb, to have the meaning we need in context it would probably have to be in the niphal. That, at least, is what the best BH lexicon, BDB, suggests. If this were the qal form of that verb and meant "was wealthy", then what we would have here is a meaning of the verb which would be unique in the corpus of Biblical Hebrew (and there is no evidence for that). So the answer to "why isn't the verb first if this is not a disjunctive clause too" is that "there is no verb in this clause to put first".

Language, moreover, means what it means. Even if like Author we were mistaken in our impression of the grammar at Genesis 13:2, it wouldn't provide a good parallel for Genesis 1:2 for the following reason: there is no contrast between the Abraham of v.1 and v.2; v.2 merely adds information. But in Genesis 1:2, there would be a contrast even without this strong grammatical signal. For even if there were no grammatical sign of contrast here, we would still have a description of a ruined earth and a universe submerged in darkness and under the tehom. Is that how God makes things? Dark, ruined, restrained? And then He has to "fix" it after the fact? And a whole lot of "fixing" was necessary in days 1-6 if verse two is supposed to represent original creation. That is one of the biggest problem for these folks and this "no-gap-theory", and replacing "but" in v.2 (which is a correct appreciation of the grammar) with "and" (which misses the contrast in the grammar based on a false parallel) really doesn't do very much to alleviate the other fatal flaws in their alternative theory.

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place (tohu – which is what the earth is actually said to be in Gen.1:2), but formed it to be inhabited (which it could not yet be in Gen.1:2 and so required the six days of re-construction).
Isaiah 45:18a NASB

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #20: 

Hi Bob, will you explain the difference in Genesis 1:3 and 1:14-16?

Hope every thing is well. Pray for you daily.

Your friend,

Response #20: 

In Genesis 1:3 God causes light to shine forth in the universe (which had been blacked out in the Genesis gap judgment); in Genesis 1:14-18, God centralized or "collects" that light into the sun and all the other stars as the visible sources of light.

Thanks for your prayers, my friend! I'm keeping you in mine day by day as well.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #21:  

Someone sent me this.

"Go home Bible. You're drunk!": Gen.1:25-27 compared to Gen.2:18-19

Why do these passages contradict each other?

Response #21: 

They don't contradict each other. Genesis chapter two starting with verse five begins a more detailed account of the creation of mankind. That is clear from the Hebrew but often confused in English versions which do not properly render verse four. For more details see the link: "The Genesis 2:4 Summary" (in SR 2).

People are always looking for supposed "contradictions" in the Bible but the Bible never ever contradicts itself. It says much about someone who automatically assumes he/she knows more than everyone else because he/she spots "a mistake" – but in all such cases we merely have to do with massively misinformed arrogance; i.e., a typically human device to make the world what the person in question wants it to be, even if that is a lie. This is what Satan did too, after all. But anyone who looks into the Word with even a little humility will quickly see that God knows more than they do (which ought to come as no surprise).

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #22:  

Hello, Dr. Robert Luginbill:

First off, I want to say your website is awesome! In my opinion, the most informative and best defensive website for the Gap Theory out there. That is precisely why I am writing you. I was hoping you can give any insight on the seeming paradox of Genesis 1:21, 27. It makes no sense whales and humans were Created ex-nihilo 6,000 - 12,000 years ago. The fossil record shows whales and sea creatures like the whale are eons old. Humans are made from the Earth (preexisting material) as the Book Ecclesiasties and others indicate, so how could we be Created ex-nihilo? A possible interpretation I heard - was maybe our spirit was Created ex-nihilo in these flesh bodies. What are your thoughts on that? Another possible explanation is the verbs "Create" & "Made" can be used analogously, they don't always mean ex-nihilo, or from preexisting material: For ex. Nehemiah 9:6 & Isaiah 65:17. That is why I've decided to go with the Day-Age Theory, which technically still fits a gap of time between lucifer's fall and Day 1. It's just make more sense Day 1 is millions/billions of years ago, not 6-12 thousand. Looking forward to your response. GOD Bless!

Response #22: 

Good to make your acquaintance. As to your question, first, it should be pointed out that in theological discussions it is often the case that people get hung up on terminology and definitions. That can be a problem, especially if not everyone understands the term in question in precisely the same way. The phrase "ex nihilo" is Latin, of course, and means "from nothing". This phrase does not occur in the Bible and is not a reference to any biblical phrasing at all; rather, it is a theological term and may, as your email demonstrates, mean slightly different things to different people. I only ever use it to describe initial creation (Genesis 1:1), not post-gap re-creation (Gen.1:2ff.).

There was no universe nor any "time" until God created time and space "from nothing" – and even that can be taken the wrong way since the "from" may suggest to some (wrongly) some sort of origin. There is no origin to time and space . . . other than the will and the power of God. Adam was created from the earth – that is, his body was; and Eve's body was fashioned from one of Adam's ribs. But in both cases – and, indeed, in the case of every human being since – their human spirits were created within their bodies at the point of birth so as to form their whole individual persons which consist of body and spirit from that time of birth forward unto eternity. So it is with us all from the point of birth forward: even unbelievers will never come "not to exist", nor will their spirits ever lack bodies to clothe them (although, of course, their intermediate and final states are horrific to contemplate). You can find out more at the link in BB 3A: "The Creation of Man".

As to animate creatures, all seen alive today were made by the Lord after the Genesis gap as the first chapter of Genesis relates. That is to say, present day life-forms date to the re-creation of life on this side of the Genesis gap; nothing alive today stems from before that time. There is an extensive fossil record, but all those life forms were destroyed in the cataclysmic judgment on the universe by God brought on as a result of the satanic revolt: light was taken away from the world and the entire universe inundated with the cosmic "deep" (or tehom) – conditions wherein no corporeal or physical life could exist. This judgment did not vaporize the earth nor its fossil record, however, and it was the same earth that the Lord restored during the seven days of re-creation recounted at the beginning of Genesis (Gen.1:3ff., that is). So there may very well have been similar (or even identical in many cases) flora and fauna on the earth before the judgment and also after God made the earth and the world habitable for life once more (see the link for a chart which explains the symbolism involved: "Summary of the Seven Days"). However, whatever life was re-created during days three through six had not been alive before, even if was a case of reviving previously existing species. Just how the Lord did this is not stated in scripture as far as I know. Did He use petrified bones (cf. the resurrection)? Did He use dirt (cf. Adam and Eve)? Did He produce the material for plants and animals "out of nothing"? The important point to keep in mind is that as with our spirits created within us at birth, the spirits of animate creatures have always been created "from nothing" too – at least as far as the physical world is concerned because they are not material or in any way noticeable by "science".

As long as we understand the above, the precise process of creating the bodies of the animals doesn't make any difference theologically, as far as I can see – not, unless, we adopt a not completely biblical meaning for the term ex nihilo and want to argue with the Bible and others over our own definitions. Theology is replete with that sort of thing of course; but it does no one any particular good and can do great harm. The Bible says what it says and means what it means irrespective of technical terms and definitions invented by theologians and superimposed backwards onto biblical passages. Getting to that meaning of scripture is no simple task at times and does take a great amount of prior preparation and sweat to come to the truth, but theological systems are always only ever useful to the extent that they accurately reflect the actual truth. They almost never are useful for deriving truth as in this ex nihilo exercise. There is an obvious reason for that. Theological systems merely represent the truth of scripture just like a painting represents some reality; but just as there is always a big difference between a painting and reality, so also there is inevitably at least some difference between what theological systems proclaim and what the Bible actual says and means – and sometimes a ponderously large one. These systems are fine as rudimentary tools to help a person get his/her bearings in the Bible, but whenever a person starts to extrapolate further "truth" from the systems themselves, error always follows in the wake of that mistake – akin to trying to write a history of Florida from a painting of Miami Beach.

I hope this answers your question. But do feel free to write me back about any of the above. In case you missed them, here is a collection of links wherein these topics are discussed:

Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers IV

The Grammar behind the Genesis Gap

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers II

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers III

The Genesis Gap (SR 2)

The Seven Days of Human History (in SR 5)

The Waters Above, the Firmament, and the Genesis Gap.

Opposition to the Genesis Gap from the Creation Research Institute et al.

The Shape of the Universe, Hominids, and the Genesis Gap.

Questioning the Genesis Gap

Whatever Happened to the Genesis Gap?

Where Can I Find More Information on the Genesis Gap?

Ex Nihilo Creation

Tohu in Genesis 1:2

As to the "day/age theory", it is not correct. There is no biblical warrant for seeing the days in Genesis chapter one as being anything other than days. One would have to analogize the whole chapter and see it as some sort of metaphor -- other than literally meaning what it plainly and obviously states -- for that to even work. With a hermeneutic approach of that sort, one could make any passage of scripture mean whatever a person might want it to mean. It is always dangerous, by the way, to shape one's view of scripture based on one's view of the world or one's sense of what is possible. That is imposing one's own "truth" on the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to speak to us and tell us what the truth really is.

Thanks much for your positive and encouraging words about this ministry! Feel free to write back any time.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #23:  

Thanks, I appreciate your reply Dr. Luginbill! To give a quick summation of what you said (or at least according to me):

The term 'ex-nihilo' is a controversial term, so we should be careful how we apply it to Scripture. If there is such a thing as ex-nihilo, it only pertains to the pre-gap. All animals that are part of the 6 Day creation were part of a completely new Creation. Humans were Made from the Earth, but our spirits were Made from nothing. Does that seem pretty accurate? I hope, I didn't take anything you said out of context.

That did clear a few things up. However, the amount of time ascribed to the recreation, is a huge problem to me. I don't see how the recreation could of happened just 6,000 years ago as young Earth Creationists claim (w/o the Gap). The word "day" (YOM) in the Hebrew is not dogmatic, like many portray it to be. Genesis 2:4 is a perfect example of how YOM can mean a set of days, not just a 24 hour day. That leads me to my next question: Is it hermeneutically sound to subscribe to the Gap Reconstruction Theory; but ascribe long periods, or ages of time to the recreation days? The 6th Day would still figure out to be very young, as day-age theorists are not evolutionists. Thanks for your time. GOD Bless!

Response #23: 

You're very welcome. To answer your latest questions:

1) "The term 'ex-nihilo' is a controversial term, so we should be careful how we apply it to Scripture": I personally only use the term for the original creation of time and space (Gen.1:1). Before Genesis 1:1, there was God, but there was no time and no space. That is why it says in Genesis 1:1 bereshith, meaning, "at first" rather than "in the beginning" – there is no "the" present because there was nothing material at all before Genesis 1:1 (n.b., this is precisely paralleled by the Greek en archei used by John in his gospel, "in beginning" – also no "the").

2) "If there is such a thing as ex-nihilo, it only pertains to the pre-gap": Whenever God makes something out of nothing, I suppose that term could be used but this would do more to confuse than explain the situation, and the only reason to develop technical terminology is to aid in explaining. If it confuses, we are better off without it. Whenever God creates a spirit – as He does at the birth of every human being, for example – He does not make use of existing material; it is an entirely supernatural event.

3) "All animals that are part of the 6 Day creation were part of a completely new Creation": First, I use the term "re-creation" because the six days are a very deliberate reconstruction of the old rather than a completely new start – for a very particular reason, namely, the refutation of Satan. Anything alive today cannot trace its ancestry back to before the Genesis gap because that judgment killed off all material life in the universe. That does not mean, however, that God is not / was not free to re-create similar or even identical species of animals at any time (cf. Ps.104:29-30). He certainly can do whatever in His sovereignty He wills or is necessary for fulfilling His perfect plan. He did not need the ark or Noah to preserve animal kind; He did it the way He did it for His own purposes; and because He did it the way He did it does not tie His hands in any way. For example, just because He did it the way He did it does not mean that after the flood He could not have re-created in a miraculous way other species which had perished (e.g., kangaroos in Australia, or the like).

4) "Humans were Made from the Earth, but our spirits were Made from nothing": Correct. And a very important point. The false position of traducianism makes our spirits essentially material in nature and our "creation" strictly a biological affair. It is amazing to me that so many putatively Bible-believing people have bought into this falsehood, because it has the effect of making their theology materialistic at its core rather than spiritual.

5) "I don't see how the recreation could of happened just 6,000 years ago": I suppose that all depends on just how "big" and powerful your God is. My God could create a google's worth of universes a google times as big as ours in a nanosecond of time with absolutely no effort whatsoever. Material creation is nothing for God. What was difficult, what cost Him, was the sacrifice of His beloved Son our dear Lord Jesus for all of our sins. There is no substitute for the Substitute who bore our sins in His body in darkness, undergoing the judgment of spiritual death until they had all been atoned for. His death for a single sin is worth more than the world and everything in it to an incalculable degree – and He died for every single sin of every person who has ever lived. The cross is generally little understood and under-appreciated, even by Christians who ought to understand and appreciate it to their core, and the undeniable logic of the cross in terms of our discussion is that this is the one perfect creation and that this is the one perfect plan as evidenced by the fact that the Son of God became a man and wed Himself thereby to this creation and obligated Himself to go to the cross to die for us all – that is bigger than any 6K or 6mil or 6bil or 6tril year problem you could ever imagine in a lifetime. I am sure that it you were to have met Adam and Eve on the seventh day, it would seem inconceivable to you that they had been created only the day before – but that is the truth of it.

6) "The word "day" (YOM) in the Hebrew is not dogmatic, like many portray it to be": It is also not so plastic that it can mean absolutely anything the person doing the interpreting wants it to mean:

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Genesis 1:5 NASB

When days are counted they are always days. And geological time periods do not have mornings and evenings with corresponding light and darkness. I would like to know on the basis of what hermeneutic principle a person could ever feel justified in taking morning/evening, light/darkness "one day" etc. as meaning anything but what it obviously means. When the Bible speaks allegorically (and that is very rare), it always makes it clear that it is doing so (cf. Ezek.23:4). Or perhaps a better question, just how in the world could Moses have made it any more clear for us that he was relating six, literal 24 hour days, even if he had wanted to – even if he had known ahead of time that some would not see this, and so had wanted to "head off at the pass" any such misinterpretation?

7) "Genesis 2:4 is a perfect example of how YOM can mean a set of days, not just a 24 hour day": That is true, however, Genesis 2:4 does not contain either of the delimiting features, namely, the count of the days (which makes it clear that they are days), and the parameters of the days, consisting of literal mornings and evenings. Further, Genesis 2:4 is a much misunderstood passage in any case. For the details, please see the link: "The Genesis 2:4 Summary".

8) "That leads me to my next question: Is it hermeneutically sound to subscribe to the Gap Reconstruction Theory; but ascribe long periods, or ages of time to the recreation days?": I think you can easily guess my answer based upon the above. The only reason, in my view, to want to see the six days as longer periods of time is from the misguided motivation of wishing to link up what the Bible says to what science says. That is always a mistake and always leads to error. Whatever the Bible says is true. Science may or may not be partially true – it can never be entirely true because it is always operating on the basis of incomplete information – but the Bible is entirely true. While science will never be "complete" – new things are being discovered all the times and old theories are ever yielding to newer ones as more facts come in – the Bible is eternal, perfect, complete, and written on the basis of absolutely perfect information, inspired by God the Holy Spirit. It's also good to remember that conflicts between the Bible and science are just as often based upon misunderstanding the Bible as they are science "getting it wrong". The Genesis gap is a perfect case in point. I believe in the truth of it because it is very clearly what the Bible teaches, rightly understood. One application of the truth of the gap is that the fossil record – which has caused so many believers so much angst over such a long period of time – now presents no problems for believers at all: these remains belong to the period before the Genesis gap (untold eons long, apparently).

The best policy for believers is to find out what scripture actually teaches and then to accept the truth of it. If this occasionally puts us at odds with what the world says or even with what we see or hear or feel, well, that is the Christian life in a nutshell:

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
2nd Corinthians 4:18 NASB

For we walk by faith, not by sight—
2nd Corinthians 5:7 NASB

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Hebrews 11:3 NASB

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #24:   

From a YEC website:

"Revelation 21:1 makes it clear that this earth (the one that will pass away) is the first earth (i.e. there never was any previous one)."

Does this pose a problem for you?

Response #24: 

Not rightly understood – the Genesis gap, that is. This physical planet earth is the same one the Lord made ex nihilo in Genesis 1:1 – and the same one that was left dark and frozen and under ice following the Lord's judgment on the devil – and the same one that was re-vitalized on this side of the Genesis gap as explained in Genesis 1:2ff. The new heavens and the new earth will be a completely new creation which will follow a complete destruction of all that now is, so that not a trace of the old will remain in the place where we will dwell with the Lord forever, a place where only "righteousness dwells" (2Pet.3:13).

Looking forward to that glorious day.

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home