What's wrong with my thinking?

[Biblewriter]

In Isaiah 45:18 we read:

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.

In Genesis 1:1-2 we read:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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.

The Hebrew word translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18 is tohu (word number 8414 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) This is exactly the same Hebrew word as the one translated without form in Genesis 1:2. It is not only basically the same word, but the same form of the same word.

From this I conclude that the scriptures not only imply, but expressly say, that the condition of the earth described in Genesis 1:2 was not the condition of the earth when God created it.

So I believe what is commonly called "the gap theory," making me an old earth creationist.

Now I am a reverent student of the Holy Scriptures. I do not believe that the Bible is only in a general sense the Word of God, but that it is the very word of God. I believe that every word, and not only every word, but the exact spelling of every word in the Bible comes directly from God. (Of course, as it was originally written, of which we have reasonably accurate copies.) Technically speaking (which I hate) I believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures in their original autographs.

Further, I do not believe we have a right to interpret the scriptures as we please, but that we are responsible to attempt to ascertain the true intent of the Holy Spirit in the words He used. I believe that proper interpretation requires careful notice, not only of the exact words used, but of what is not said. That is, I believe that even as every detail included in the text is significant, seemingly obvious details that are not included in the text were omitted for a reason.

In keeping with these principles, I need to know if my interpretation of the relationship between Isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 1:2 is in error.

I know that there are many here who think this is not correct thinking, but no one has ever given me satisfactory scriptural proof that my thinking is wrong. If anyone can, please do so. This is not a challenge to debate. It is a serious question. If I am wrong, I seriously need to have my error pointed out to me.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

In Isaiah 45:18 we read:

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.

In Genesis 1:1-2 we read:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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.

The Hebrew word translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18 is tohu (word number 8414 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) This is exactly the same Hebrew word as the one translated without form in Genesis 1:2. It is not only basically the same word, but the same form of the same word.

From this I conclude that the scriptures not only imply, but expressly say, that the condition of the earth described in Genesis 1:2 was not the condition of the earth when God created it.

So I believe what is commonly called "the gap theory," making me an old earth creationist.

Now I am a reverent student of the Holy Scriptures. I do not believe that the Bible is only in a general sense the Word of God, but that it is the very word of God. I believe that every word, and not only every word, but the exact spelling of every word in the Bible comes directly from God. (Of course, as it was originally written, of which we have reasonably accurate copies.) Technically speaking (which I hate) I believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures in their original autographs.

Further, I do not believe we have a right to interpret the scriptures as we please, but that we are responsible to attempt to ascertain the true intent of the Holy Spirit in the words He used. I believe that proper interpretation requires careful notice, not only of the exact words used, but of what is not said. That is, I believe that even as every detail included in the text is significant, seemingly obvious details that are not included in the text were omitted for a reason.

In keeping with these principles, I need to know if my interpretation of the relationship between Isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 1:2 is in error.

I know that there are many here who think this is not correct thinking, but no one has ever given me satisfactory scriptural proof that my thinking is wrong. If anyone can, please do so. This is not a challenge to debate. It is a serious question. If I am wrong, I seriously need to have my error pointed out to me.

I believe there are many issues with the gap theory. This article can do a much better job then I at explaining some of those issues. It also addresses the point you bring up. I ask you read the article in full. The article and my views line up very close.

 

[Biblewriter]

I believe there are many issues with the gap theory. This article can do a much better job then I at explaining some of those issues. It also addresses the point you bring up. I ask you read the article in full. The article and my views line up very close.

I am familiar with all the arguments in the article you linked to.

The article answers the created vs made argument very ineffectively. Saying that the Hebrew word in the verses that say made can also mean created has no bearing on the question. The fact that the word does not necessarily mean created, that is, made out of nothing, is significant.

The article claims that the gap theory is only a concession to evolutionary science, and than traces the origin of this same gap theory to hundreds of years before the modern theory of evolution appeared. This is contradictory.

The article denounces using science to interpret the Bible, and then uses science to prove that the gap theory is wrong. This, again, is contradictory.

The article mentions that there are many "gap theories,"and then answers only one of the most far out of those theories.

The only significant argument presented in the article is that if the gap theory is correct, there was death in the earth before sin. This, on its face, seems to be conclusive. But upon closer examination, it falls down.

The gap theory assumes that whatever previous creation existed in the world was destroyed. Whether this was due to sin or for some other reason is insignificant. The theory is that the creation that then existed was destroyed. Then, about six thousand years ago, God re-created the earth in six days. Sin entered this new creation by one man, Adam, and death by sin. This seems to me to be just as valid an interpretation of the scriptures in question as the one advanced by the writer of the article.

And finally, the article wholly fails to even address the relationship between Isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 1:2.

So the linked article fails to demonstrate to my satisfaction that I am in error.

 

[linssue55]

In Isaiah 45:18 we read:

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.

In Genesis 1:1-2 we read:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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.

The Hebrew word translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18 is tohu (word number 8414 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) This is exactly the same Hebrew word as the one translated without form in Genesis 1:2. It is not only basically the same word, but the same form of the same word.

From this I conclude that the scriptures not only imply, but expressly say, that the condition of the earth described in Genesis 1:2 was not the condition of the earth when God created it.

So I believe what is commonly called "the gap theory," making me an old earth creationist.

Now I am a reverent student of the Holy Scriptures. I do not believe that the Bible is only in a general sense the Word of God, but that it is the very word of God. I believe that every word, and not only every word, but the exact spelling of every word in the Bible comes directly from God. (Of course, as it was originally written, of which we have reasonably accurate copies.) Technically speaking (which I hate) I believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures in their original autographs.

Further, I do not believe we have a right to interpret the scriptures as we please, but that we are responsible to attempt to ascertain the true intent of the Holy Spirit in the words He used. I believe that proper interpretation requires careful notice, not only of the exact words used, but of what is not said. That is, I believe that even as every detail included in the text is significant, seemingly obvious details that are not included in the text were omitted for a reason.

In keeping with these principles, I need to know if my interpretation of the relationship between Isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 1:2 is in error.

I know that there are many here who think this is not correct thinking, but no one has ever given me satisfactory scriptural proof that my thinking is wrong. If anyone can, please do so. This is not a challenge to debate. It is a serious question. If I am wrong, I seriously need to have my error pointed out to me.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]Is 45:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]18 For thus said Jehovah/God[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]Who 'created out of nothing' {bara'} the heavens;[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]God Himself Who formed/molded {yatsar} the earth[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]and 'manufactured it out of something else' {`asah}.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]He has established it {kuwn}.H[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]e 'created it out of nothing {kuwn}[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]not in vain.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]He formed/molded {yatsar} it to be inhabited.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]I am Jehovah/God . . . and there is none else.[/FONT]


Gen 1:
​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]1) bara' - means to create something out of nothing. So is a true beginning. See Genesis 1:1.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]2) 'asah - means to construct or manufacture something out of something else. See Genesis 1:25.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]3) yatsar - means to form or design.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]4) banah' - which means to be built or constructed.}[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]1~~In the beginning which was not a beginning {eternity past},[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]Elohiym/Godhead created out of nothing {bara'}[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]the heavens {1st -earth to space; 2nd space to heaven; 3rd heaven itself} and the planet earth.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]{Note: Elohiym is the Hebrew word meaning Gods. It refers to the Godhead - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.}[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]{Icepack covered in Darkness - then Heat from God}[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]2~~ But the planet earth had become desolate and empty,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]and darkness was over the raging waters {how the ice pack was formed}; but the Spirit of God {God the Holy Spirit}[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Times New I2]radiated heat on the face/surface of the frozen waters.[/FONT]

 

[holdon]

I am familiar with all the arguments in the article you linked to.

The article answers the created vs made argument very ineffectively. Saying that the Hebrew word in the verses that say made can also mean created has no bearing on the question. The fact that the word does not necessarily mean created, that is, made out of nothing, is significant.

The article claims that the gap theory is only a concession to evolutionary science, and than traces the origin of this same gap theory to hundreds of years before the modern theory of evolution appeared. This is contradictory.

The article denounces using science to interpret the Bible, and then uses science to prove that the gap theory is wrong. This, again, is contradictory.

The article mentions that there are many "gap theories,"and then answers only one of the most far out of those theories.

The only significant argument presented in the article is that if the gap theory is correct, there was death in the earth before sin. This, on its face, seems to be conclusive. But upon closer examination, it falls down.

The gap theory assumes that whatever previous creation existed in the world was destroyed. Whether this was due to sin or for some other reason is insignificant. The theory is that the creation that then existed was destroyed. Then, about six thousand years ago, God re-created the earth in six days. Sin entered this new creation by one man, Adam, and death by sin. This seems to me to be just as valid an interpretation of the scriptures in question as the one advanced by the writer of the article.

And finally, the article wholly fails to even address the relationship between Isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 1:2.

So the linked article fails to demonstrate to my satisfaction that I am in error.

I agree that it is an article that poorly addresses the issues.
The church fathers already believed that Gen 1:2 was a sequence to 1:1, not the same events.
1. What God creates must be orderly and good; unlike Mythology and pagan religions where their gods start with chaos. So, Gen 1:1 cannot mean that God created chaos.
2. Is 45:18 corroborates this and further adds that it was not God's intent that the earth be chaos. By the way this is reinforced by the fact that it speaks only of the earth and not the heavens.
3. Gen 1:2 can very well be translated: the earth became chaos and empty. (this happens
4. Gen 1:1 is not just a header, but the word AND in Gen 1:2 indicates a sequence.
5. The words "waste" and "empty" occur also in Is. 34:11 and Jer. 4:23 and indicate in both places decay and destruction. The word "waste" occurs also in several other places with the same meaning: a result of judgment and calamity.
6. Gen 1:2 speaks of darkness and this is always linked to evil and judgment.
7. The "deep waters" also have a negative connotation throughout Scripture.
8. The Spirit hovering over the deep waters is again an indication that the Spirit's action was required to bring and restore life like in so many other places in Scripture.
How did this situation of Gen 1:2 came to be?
We saw it was not God.
Job 38:7 tells who else was present from the beginning: angels. Satan was of those. See 2 Cor 11:14.
The earth was Satan's domain. Probably already before his fall. He is the prince of this world. Jn 12:31 and the power of darkness!. He told Jesus he owned the authorities in this place: Luke 4:5,6. Satan travels throughout his territory. Job 1:7. He is the god of this age. 2 Cor 4:4.
His fall is found in Ezek. 28:11-19; 1 Tim 3:6; possibly Is. 14:12-15. It is very likely that the condition of Gen 1:2 was brought about by Satan's fall.

Nowhere is it said that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. In the beginning God created and it took Him 6 to make them, that is to dress them up. See Gen 2:3 "all his work which God had created to make it."
Creation first, then make (model) it so that is suitable.

 

[Biblewriter]

I agree that it is an article that poorly addresses the issues.
The church fathers already believed that Gen 1:2 was a sequence to 1:1, not the same events.
1. What God creates must be orderly and good; unlike Mythology and pagan religions where their gods start with chaos. So, Gen 1:1 cannot mean that God created chaos.
2. Is 45:18 corroborates this and further adds that it was not God's intent that the earth be chaos. By the way this is reinforced by the fact that it speaks only of the earth and not the heavens.
3. Gen 1:2 can very well be translated: the earth became chaos and empty. (this happens
4. Gen 1:1 is not just a header, but the word AND in Gen 1:2 indicates a sequence.
5. The words "waste" and "empty" occur also in Is. 34:11 and Jer. 4:23 and indicate in both places decay and destruction. The word "waste" occurs also in several other places with the same meaning: a result of judgment and calamity.
6. Gen 1:2 speaks of darkness and this is always linked to evil and judgment.
7. The "deep waters" also have a negative connotation throughout Scripture.
8. The Spirit hovering over the deep waters is again an indication that the Spirit's action was required to bring and restore life like in so many other places in Scripture.
How did this situation of Gen 1:2 came to be?
We saw it was not God.
Job 38:7 tells who else was present from the beginning: angels. Satan was of those. See 2 Cor 11:14.
The earth was Satan's domain. Probably already before his fall. He is the prince of this world. Jn 12:31 and the power of darkness!. He told Jesus he owned the authorities in this place: Luke 4:5,6. Satan travels throughout his territory. Job 1:7. He is the god of this age. 2 Cor 4:4.
His fall is found in Ezek. 28:11-19; 1 Tim 3:6; possibly Is. 14:12-15. It is very likely that the condition of Gen 1:2 was brought about by Satan's fall.

Nowhere is it said that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. In the beginning God created and it took Him 6 to make them, that is to dress them up. See Gen 2:3 "all his work which God had created to make it."
Creation first, then make (model) it so that is suitable.

You expressed my views better than I did. But unlike the dispensationalism and eschatology forums, where contrary ideas are usually based on erroneous doctrine, YEC's are typically godly Christians with no systematic pattern of bad doctrine. When many such tell me I am wrong, I periodically feel a need to check whether any of them can give any real scriptural basis for saying my interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. So far, none of them has been able to present an argument that seems to me to be correct.

The scriptures caution us against teaching erroneous doctrine, and any of is who teaches error will be held accountable. So it behoove each of us to listen to our brethren. But that does not mean we should yield to those who base their doctrines on false premises.

In the case of YEC's, I hold their interpretation of scripture to be incorrect, but not based of unsound doctrine. But I am very jealous of scriptural integrity, and do not wish to ever teach error, so my request for strong reasons was real and sincere, and still holds.

I was hoping Busterdog would respond, for he seems to be the most articulate YEC'er in the forum.

So Busterdog, Please try to convince me I am wrong. For if I am, I desperately need to know it. But do not accuse me of compromising with the evolutionists. I reject evolution as seriously destructive of fundamental Christian doctrine. I do not understand how anyone could be a Christian and believe in evolution, for it is wholly incompatible with the Bible.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I am familiar with all the arguments in the article you linked to.

The article answers the created vs made argument very ineffectively. Saying that the Hebrew word in the verses that say made can also mean created has no bearing on the question. The fact that the word does not necessarily mean created, that is, made out of nothing, is significant.

I think the argument is very effective. I believe you're trying to force a word to mean something even though when the Bible as a whole is taken into context the meaning your are using is wrong. The conext is shown when God said:

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: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

You can try to change the meaning of this verse but I believe if you approach it without any preconceived ideas it means God created the Earth and space in 6 - 24 hour days.

The article claims that the gap theory is only a concession to evolutionary science, and than traces the origin of this same gap theory to hundreds of years before the modern theory of evolution appeared. This is contradictory.

You can't deny that the gap theory didn't gain popularity until "modern geology" told us that rocks are billions of years old and that things are as they have always been. The funny thing is that a global flood, which all gap believers I have talked to believe in, would wipe out the evidences for billions of years as mentioned in the article. Not only that but if you believe in a global Noah's flood you believe in 2 global floods!

The article denounces using science to interpret the Bible, and then uses science to prove that the gap theory is wrong. This, again, is contradictory.

There is nothing wrong with using both science and the Bible to prove a young earth creation. What AIG is against is taking the idea of billions of years and reading that into the Bible which is what many are doing.

The article mentions that there are many "gap theories,"and then answers only one of the most far out of those theories.

The only significant argument presented in the article is that if the gap theory is correct, there was death in the earth before sin. This, on its face, seems to be conclusive. But upon closer examination, it falls down.

The gap theory assumes that whatever previous creation existed in the world was destroyed. Whether this was due to sin or for some other reason is insignificant. The theory is that the creation that then existed was destroyed. Then, about six thousand years ago, God re-created the earth in six days. Sin entered this new creation by one man, Adam, and death by sin. This seems to me to be just as valid an interpretation of the scriptures in question as the one advanced by the writer of the article.

You have a god that creates the earth and then has to try all over again. I don't believe God is anything like that. God didn't wipe out the earth even in the days of Noah. Instead he had Noah build an ark and save his family and the animals. I don't see even a hint of support for the gap theory in scripture, I really don't.

And finally, the article wholly fails to even address the relationship between Isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 1:2.

So the linked article fails to demonstrate to my satisfaction that I am in error.

I wonder how well you read that article. If you read it closely you wouldn't have posted this. From the article:

Tohu and bohu appear together only in the three above-mentioned places in the Old Testament. However, tohu appears alone in a number of other places and in all cases simply means “formless.” The word itself does not tell us about the cause of formlessness; this has to be gleaned from the context. Isaiah 45:18 (often quoted by gappists) is rendered in the KJV “he created it not in vain [tohu], he formed it to be inhabited.” In the context, Isaiah is speaking about Israel, God’s people, and His grace in restoring them. He did not choose His people in order to destroy them, but to be their God and for them to be His people. Isaiah draws an analogy with God’s purpose in creation: He did not create the world for it to be empty. No, He created it to be formed and filled, a suitable abode for His creation. Gappists miss the point altogether when they argue that because Isaiah says God did not create the world tohu, it must have become tohu at some later time. Isaiah 45:18 is about God’s purpose in creating, not about the original state of the creation.

 

[busterdog]

I know that there are many here who think this is not correct thinking, but no one has ever given me satisfactory scriptural proof that my thinking is wrong. If anyone can, please do so. This is not a challenge to debate. It is a serious question. If I am wrong, I seriously need to have my error pointed out to me.

Some venerable creationists, YECs at that, have struggle with this problem. Missler says that his biggest mistakes are always not taking the scripture literally enough. His is the only discussion of the issue that I can recall. My recollection is that he hadn't quite penetrated the issue. http://khouse.org/articles/2000/262/
http://khouse.org/articles/2000/262/

So, as one posing this question, you are in good company.

Gen. 1 is a thesis or brief narrative. I don't think Gen. 2. must necessary follow sequentially. By analogy, for example, Gen. 2.4 clearly starts a new narrative from a different perspective and at a time earlier than Gen. 2:3. The integrity of the six day framework is implied from the "starting again" at Gen. 2.4.

Isaiah talks about "creation", as distinct from Gen. 1:2, which talks of the "brooding" of the HS that preceded creation. Isaiah is post-creation, using the word "create" explicitly. Gen. 1:2 refers to what "was" is pre-creation.

Tohu has lots of different meanings, as does the word mayim, or "waters". Tohu does suggest something inchoate or not realized, as a opposed to something that is "waste" as in Jeremiah or "sterile," as in Isaiah. For the God who changes not, the earth certainly had some "reality" in the eternal realm before God started the clock here in our world. It was inchoate, and the HS brooded over its substance before it was formed as "earth".

The word mayim is also helpful to look at. :

1) water, waters
a) water
b) water of the feet, urine
c) of danger, violence, transitory things, refreshment (fig.)

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H04325&Version=kjv

If you go through the whole description in strongs and the concordance you see references to, fountains, and even, I think, sperm, actually. Not that I am ready for any Apsu/Tiamat nonsense about sex in Gen. 1, but there is good reason to think that we are not looking at an ocean here, but a subtance in transition or starting to flow out or something like that. The idea of transitory things or things in transition is an interesting idea for this use.

Thus, if waters are not necessarily "bodies of water", what might tohu be? A lot more than "wilderness" or "wasteland" apparently.

Another Misslerism is that Nachmonides theorized a 10 dimensional universe apparently from reading Genesis. So, there is some support for reading these words expansively.

In putting togther Gen. and Isaiah, it seems that God took something with no life and made it liveable for us. When he made it, it was for us to prosper and live in. It was not something simply made for sport or for the sake of itself, like a mere idea or a proposition. It was an intention (Gen 1:2) made real for our sakes (Isaiah 45).

Working in reverse, in Jeremiah, which also uses "Tohu", and referring to the outworking of judgment in battle, which created a wasteland. With a God of mercy, what was made of the earth was, in the end, pointless and unnecessary, and void in that sense.

 

[busterdog]

I believe there are many issues with the gap theory. This article can do a much better job then I at explaining some of those issues. It also addresses the point you bring up. I ask you read the article in full. The article and my views line up very close.

Good article. Especially the point about when sin entered by one man at the fall. Never thought about that in this context.

However, I think there isa lot of unexplored territory here regarding the meanings of tohu bohu.

Going through the concordance, there is an enormous range of meaning here:

"unreal" (not the video game, though that would fit the gap theory)
"wilderness"
"invain"
"confusion"

The sort of trippy notions of something "existing" without being realized in the platonic, Brahmin, etc. sence is not impossible under these various uses. The idea of a smoking battlefield to me asks a lot more of the text than this kind of intellectualism.

Recall that the name of God is "I am". The Bible is not above this kind of gynmastic.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H08414&Version=kjv

[FONT=Arial Unicode MS,Gentium] Strong's Number H8414 matches the Hebrew תהו (tohuw). (More Info) [/FONT] Isa 49:4 Then I said 0559 , I have laboured 03021 in vain 07385, I have spent 03615 my strength 03581 for nought 08414, and in vain 01892: [yet] surely 0403 my judgment 04941 [is] with the LORD 03068, and my work 06468 with my God 0430. Isa 59:4 None calleth 07121 for justice 06664, nor [any] pleadeth 08199 for truth 0530: they trust 0982 in vanity 08414, and speak 01696 lies 07723; they conceive 02029 mischief 05999, and bring forth 03205 iniquity 0205. Jer 4:23 I beheld 07200 the earth 0776, and, lo, [it was] without form 08414, and void 0922; and the heavens 08064, and they [had] no light 0216.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thank you, Busterdog. But if I am wrong and willing to learn, you have a duty to convince me I am wrong. Please try, for if I am wrong, I sincerely want to be corrected.

But I do not think I am wrong, so it will take some serious convincing. Please pray before you answer me.

 

[busterdog]

I was hoping Busterdog would respond, for he seems to be the most articulate YEC'er in the forum.

So Busterdog, Please try to convince me I am wrong. For if I am, I desperately need to know it. But do not accuse me of compromising with the evolutionists. I reject evolution as seriously destructive of fundamental Christian doctrine. I do not understand how anyone could be a Christian and believe in evolution, for it is wholly incompatible with the Bible.

Just saw this. Now I have to have to go back and do a better job.

 

[busterdog]

Thank you, Busterdog. But if I am wrong and willing to learn, you have a duty to convince me I am wrong. Please try, for if I am wrong, I sincerely want to be corrected.

But I do not think I am wrong, so it will take some serious convincing. Please pray before you answer me.

I will work a little harder at it. I was just kind of throwing up some ideas.

Just give me a couple of notes about where to focus.

ONe thing that is probably required is to go back in and show how a staunch literalist can justify sounding loosey goosey with words like "wilderness" and "waters." That is going to take some concentration and care. The whole gap theory is indeed a problem for literalism -- that is, the "plain text" presents some issues that are not simple to resolve.

Let me ask you how you see the method of trying to read this part of scripture. Here is one possible "plain text" reading of the KJV:

God first made the heavens and earth, and the latter was initially uncomplete and indistinct as the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters surrounding the earth and considered the work of creation. Then God said let there be light, and made it distinct from darkness on the first day of His work. On the second day, He made a sky in the middle of the waters and seperated the water in the sky from the ocean water on the earth. Then he made the ocean waters aggregate in a one place and dry land to rise in the other areas of the earth. Then he made plants to grow on the land on the third day. On the fourth day, he made stars and lights in the sky. Then he made a sun and moon to come and go with each day and month, respectively.

Is this the problem:

"…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…" - Edwin Hubble. “

Is there a problem with the order in which things were created here?

If the earth is admittedly in a favored position, as in being formed before the other celestial bodies, I think the problem largely disappears. An unformed blob on day is not a problem is it, unless you require that stars and all nine planets be formed all on the same day? (The heavens then would just be space with nothing in it on day one.)

The Isaiah passage is a statement of purpose, more than chronology, is it not? I remember hearing Missler teaching this as a statement of how things were in the beginning. But, now I can't find anything in Isaiah that requires that tohu be a condition on the earth on a particular day. From day one, God was intending to build a place for people to live in. Does the Isaiah text require that any more be said here?

 

[Biblewriter]

I will work a little harder at it. I was just kind of throwing up some ideas.

Just give me a couple of notes about where to focus.

ONe thing that is probably required is to go back in and show how a staunch literalist can justify sounding loosey goosey with words like "wilderness" and "waters." That is going to take some concentration and care. The whole gap theory is indeed a problem for literalism -- that is, the "plain text" presents some issues that are not simple to resolve.

Let me ask you how you see the method of trying to read this part of scripture. Here is one possible "plain text" reading of the KJV:

God first made the heavens and earth, and the latter was initially uncomplete and indistinct as the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters surrounding the earth and considered the work of creation. Then God said let there be light, and made it distinct from darkness on the first day of His work. On the second day, He made a sky in the middle of the waters and seperated the water in the sky from the ocean water on the earth. Then he made the ocean waters aggregate in a one place and dry land to rise in the other areas of the earth. Then he made plants to grow on the land on the third day. On the fourth day, he made stars and lights in the sky. Then he made a sun and moon to come and go with each day and month, respectively.

Is this the problem:

Is there a problem with the order in which things were created here?

If the earth is admittedly in a favored position, as in being formed before the other celestial bodies, I think the problem largely disappears. An unformed blob on day is not a problem is it, unless you require that stars and all nine planets be formed all on the same day? (The heavens then would just be space with nothing in it on day one.)

The Isaiah passage is a statement of purpose, more than chronology, is it not? I remember hearing Missler teaching this as a statement of how things were in the beginning. But, now I can't find anything in Isaiah that requires that tohu be a condition on the earth on a particular day. From day one, God was intending to build a place for people to live in. Does the Isaiah text require that any more be said here?

If your interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 is correct, why did God include the detail that the earth was initially waste and empty? The statement seems pointless unless there was some kind of a break there. Verse 1 does not just say that God first created the earth. It says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. After that, it says the earth was without form and void. This is unquestionably a sequence. The only question is how much time passed during this part of the sequence. But the break in this sequence comes after God created the heavens, not before.

I have heard the argument before that the Isaiah passage could simply refer to the entire sequence of creation. But this is very similar to my reaction to the argument that death only entered the world by sin. My reaction is that this passage could just as easily mean that death entered the present creation through sin, or that death came upon mankind through sin.

Adam, Eve, and the animals could not have survived without some kind of food. So the death of plants had to be part of the original design of creation. This is also implied in John 12:24, where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

These are just a few initial thoughts to start a discussion.

 

[busterdog]

If your interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 is correct, why did God include the detail that the earth was initially waste and empty? The statement seems pointless unless there was some kind of a break there. Verse 1 does not just say that God first created the earth. It says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. After that, it says the earth was without form and void. This is unquestionably a sequence. The only question is how much time passed during this part of the sequence. But the break in this sequence comes after God created the heavens, not before.

I have heard the argument before that the Isaiah passage could simply refer to the entire sequence of creation. But this is very similar to my reaction to the argument that death only entered the world by sin. My reaction is that this passage could just as easily mean that death entered the present creation through sin, or that death came upon mankind through sin.

Adam, Eve, and the animals could not have survived without some kind of food. So the death of plants had to be part of the original design of creation. This is also implied in John 12:24, where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

These are just a few initial thoughts to start a discussion.

As for the "sequence" on day one, are Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 a sequence, or could they be more or less contemporaneous? SInce dry land had not appeared on day one, the first day was manifestly incopmplete. (I think I am abandoning the first idea I wrote about a second sequence starting in Gen. 1.2 as unnecesary.)

Isaiah tells us the purpose of the earth. To be populated. By Isaiah's terms, that did not happen until the sixth day. Thus, on day one, the earth, by that definition must have been void. I like the idea of the favored position for the earth. The whole point was the people who would live there and be saved by their King. On day one, the earth had not reached that potential or realized its purpose in sustaining life..

Aren't you putting a lot of emphasis on one view of Hebrew grammar, that the earth "had become" void? That is one view of the verb, but that indication of transition need not have been from a finished creation to a wasted creation. It could have been a transition from nothing to something.

As for the word "empty", the question is, Empty of what? I am having a hard time seeing that it must be "more empty than it had previously been" unless one wants to assume that Gen 1:1 establishes a completed earth and a starry firmament, which I don't think is required.

God does call the "firmament" "heaven", and the "firmament" was made on day 2. So what was heaven on day 1? How do you get something more intact or complete in Gen. 1:1 than what you have in Gen. 1:2? Would you also suggest that a heaven that needed to be reformed on day 2 suffered some casualty between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2?

 

[shernren]

I know that I am not welcome here. However, I am firstly quite puzzled by the fact that people who claim to know what Scripture "clearly means" are struggling to agree what it means.

More seriously, I am disturbed that the first reaction is to dig into the dictionary to resolve the ambiguity about what a word might mean. Sometimes that is not the best approach, especially with a word that represents an abstraction, like tohu and bohu - "void" and "formless"; these are abstract, not concrete descriptions. If I tell you that "I won the set!", you cannot figure out what I have won by turning to the dictionary. It will help, of course; but you can only understand me if you understand the context of what I am saying: did I just come back from a game of tennis, an auction for fine china teapots, or a toy store promotion?

[Thus ends one bit that is remotely critical of anything happening here. Note that I have nowhere supported evolution, refuted creationism, maligned any organizations, or accused anyone of fraud. I hope this is enough to establish my goodwill without a Trekkie split-fingers emoticon.]

On to Isaiah 45. What is happening in the whole chapter? You cannot pluck a single verse out and make it say something; if you want to use v18 to support a particular doctrine about God's nature of creation, what does v7 say?

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
(Isaiah 45:7 NIV)

Maybe it's just me, but it's not a good idea to support a doctrine saying "God couldn't create something formless and void" from a passage that says "God creates darkness and disaster"! What is happening in this chapter of Scripture?

This is a prophecy about the coming of Cyrus and the future hope of Israel. In the first part of it, vv. 1-14, God declares Cyrus His anointed and reveals to Isaiah that Cyrus will be a great conqueror, God-blessed. It is within this context that v7 occurs, and it is immediately apparent what "darkness" and "disaster" are: not the absolute opposites of good, but the fact that Cyrus' enemies will experience precisely that, and it will have been God's doing.

At verse 15 the passage turns: for the first time in this chapter God is called

Truly you are a God who hides himself,
O God and Savior of Israel.
(Isaiah 45:15 NIV)

(emphasis added) The focus shifts from God's general providence and guidance over events on the (at that time) world stage to God's covenantal love for His chosen people. God in the previous 14 verses has been just at most "God of Israel" or "God of Jacob", but now He turns towards His people and reminds them that He is their Savior through all this coming turmoil. And what credentials does He bear?

All the makers of idols will be put to shame and disgraced;
they will go off into disgrace together.
But Israel will be saved by the LORD
with an everlasting salvation;
you will never be put to shame or disgraced,
to ages everlasting.
For this is what the LORD says--
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited--
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob's descendants,
'Seek me in vain.'
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right.
(Isaiah 45:16-19 NIV)

Note firstly the focus of this passage. This passage is about God! Thus v.18 is not about creation, it is about God! It does not say "Creation was not empty, but it was inhabited"; instead it says "He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited". The emphasis is not so much on creation's identity as God's action.

First note the opening of v.18: "For ... " This shows again that the purpose of God recounting this is to justify something He has just said. What is it? It is that Israel will never be put to shame by God. How does He justify it?

For this is what the LORD says--
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited--
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob's descendants,
'Seek me in vain.'
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right.
(Isaiah 45:18-19 NIV)

(emphases added) The NIV translation obscures this, but both words are the same tohu in the original. There is a clear comparison between God making the earth not empty, but inhabited; and Jacob's descendants seeking God not in vain, but in - ? In the covenant relationship that God had initiated with Israel. (This and the following is something I have learned from men of faith, whom I believe would oppose evolution as much as you do.)

There is a clear parallelism between creation and covenant in this passage and others. For example, there is separation when the waters are divided and when land is divided from water; there is separation when the Israelites observe their unique covenantal laws, right down to otherwise arbitrary rules over diet and other trivial matters. God first creates spaces on the first three days, and then fills them with their denizens on the next three; God creates the Promised Land, but the Abrahamic covenant has to wait more than 400 years before it can be fulfilled in the settlement of the Promised Land. The same Hebrew word for "create" bara that is used in Genesis 1 is also used of Israel (Isaiah 43:1, 15). So in the same way there is a declaration of purpose for God's creation - "Not in vain, but for inhabitance!" which parallels a declaration of purpose for Jacob - "Not in vain, but you will have truth and righteousness when you find Me."

What does this have to say about the whole Gap Theory controversy? Nothing much, really. This passage shows that God's ultimate purpose for creation was for inhabitance and that in parallel God's ultimate purpose for Jacob was to seek God and meaningfully find and demonstrate His glory - and if they are truly parallel, then since God allows Jacob to stumble on the path to finding Him, so God can allow for creation to be barren for a day if that makes its inhabitance all the more glorious.

There is an argument which I personally find dubious because of my leanings but which may convince you: the verse mentions God's creation in a couplet "He did not create it to be empty / but formed it to be inhabited". Now gap theory takes the former to be such a serious declaration of purpose that the Earth's emptiness cannot be a result of God's actions. However, it also postulates that the earth was uninhabited for quite a while, and certainly not by humans until the last 6,000 years. In that case, the latter part of the verse, "formed it to be inhabited", has not been true of the Earth as a whole for long periods of time either - so gap theory, in keeping the first part of the verse, has jettisoned the second.

However -

[Here I begin a rant which may or may not be justified, and which certainly will not defend evolution at any point. Ignore if you're thin-skinned.]

- I find it galling that this passage has been treated as a means to an end. I find creationists doing the same thing in public with every passage they cite: they make a big fuss about its compatilibility or incompatibility with some scheme or other of origins. Is that what the Bible is about? Seeing how many verses you can trip the other side with while dodging the ones they throw at you? I have discussed Romans 5, Mark 10, 1 Corinthians 15 and now Isaiah 45 with creationists, and never once as I recall have the creationists ever made any points about God's love that helps us withstand trials, the sanctity of marriage, the glory and mystery of the resurrected body, and the parallel of creation to covenant. I can only trust, trying to see my brothers and sisters in the best light possible, that for a creationist, a Bible study is very different from the exercise of combating evolution - and that in itself makes me wonder.

I trust that you all will still be interested in what the Bible actually says once you're done defending it from us infidels.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As a whole, a very well written piece (as always).

However ...

I find it galling that this passage has been treated as a means to an end. I find creationists doing the same thing in public with every passage they cite: they make a big fuss about its compatilibility or incompatibility with some scheme or other of origins. Is that what the Bible is about? Seeing how many verses you can trip the other side with while dodging the ones they throw at you? I have discussed Romans 5, Mark 10, 1 Corinthians 15 and now Isaiah 45 with creationists, and never once as I recall have the creationists ever made any points about God's love that helps us withstand trials, the sanctity of marriage, the glory and mystery of the resurrected body, and the parallel of creation to covenant. I can only trust, trying to see my brothers and sisters in the best light possible, that for a creationist, a Bible study is very different from the exercise of combating evolution - and that in itself makes me wonder.

I trust that you all will still be interested in what the Bible actually says once you're done defending it from us infidels.

The first thing to remember is that this is OT and the focus is CvE.

I must agree that perusing these threads, I find myself rather upset with the notion (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) that we TEs must be won back to the truth.

But, since this is OT, I expect verse dissection to prove one's case.

I hope and pray and trust that if I were to look up where else these folks post, they'd honestly be interested in what the Bible actually says.

 

[busterdog]

I know that I am not welcome here. However, I am firstly quite puzzled by the fact that people who claim to know what Scripture "clearly means" are struggling to agree what it means.

* * *

I trust that you all will still be interested in what the Bible actually says once you're done defending it from us infidels.

That's right, struggle once and you are worthless and so are your methods.

Here's another idiot who ought to just give it up:

2Pe 3:15
And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16
As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[busterdog]

As a whole, a very well written piece (as always).

However ...



The first thing to remember is that this is OT and the focus is CvE.

I must agree that perusing these threads, I find myself rather upset with the notion (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) that we TEs must be one back to the truth.

But, since this is OT, I expect verse dissection to prove one's case.

I hope and pray and trust that if I were to look up where else these folks post, they'd honestly be interested in what the Bible actually says.

The nature of some convictions require exactly that conclusion. Obviously saying it with grace and recognizing the partial merit goes a long way. Grace is f ree. We can both receive grace. But, the truth doesn't change. One of us HAS to be one back of the truth. We can't both be right.

 

[holdon]

On to Isaiah 45. What is happening in the whole chapter? You cannot pluck a single verse out and make it say something; if you want to use v18 to support a particular doctrine about God's nature of creation, what does v7 say?

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
(Isaiah 45:7 NIV)

Maybe it's just me, but it's not a good idea to support a doctrine saying "God couldn't create something formless and void" from a passage that says "God creates darkness and disaster"! What is happening in this chapter of Scripture?

A good point. What is happening in this chapter is that God makes Cyrus the Persian the instrument of rescue for Israel. Cyrus of course held to the persian religion of dualism. That's why God announces himself the way he does: so that Cyrus would understand that God is above everything.

Note firstly the focus of this passage. This passage is about God! Thus v.18 is not about creation, it is about God! It does not say "Creation was not empty, but it was inhabited"; instead it says "He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited". The emphasis is not so much on creation's identity as God's action.

But that doesn't mean that the statement about Him creating is not correct. And the "tohu" is something that is not compatible with God: if you seek Him, it will not be in vain.

There is an argument which I personally find dubious because of my leanings but which may convince you: the verse mentions God's creation in a couplet "He did not create it to be empty / but formed it to be inhabited". Now gap theory takes the former to be such a serious declaration of purpose that the Earth's emptiness cannot be a result of God's actions. However, it also postulates that the earth was uninhabited for quite a while, and certainly not by humans until the last 6,000 years. In that case, the latter part of the verse, "formed it to be inhabited", has not been true of the Earth as a whole for long periods of time either - so gap theory, in keeping the first part of the verse, has jettisoned the second.

Not a good argument. Because we have 2 facts from the first chapters of Genesis: 1. God created the heavens and the earth and here in Isaiah only the Earth is in view. 2. He formed the Earth in 6 days so that Man could live on it. God wanted to save humanity from the time of the first sin in Gen. 3 and that has lasted some 6000 years. So, His purposes don't always come about immediately....

 

[Tinker Grey]

The nature of some convictions require exactly that conclusion. Obviously saying it with grace and recognizing the partial merit goes a long way. Grace is f ree. We can both receive grace. But, the truth doesn't change. One of us HAS to be one back of the truth. We can't both be right.

Or we can conclude that it simply doesn't matter. Many, many people walk thru life never considering CvE. Given the human condition, if you were to ask they'd reply "Of course blah is true." But, it never impacts their walk with God.

(Note though that I think for TEs, arguing with YECs, et al., isn't about bringing YECs back to the truth -- in the sense of correcting apostacy. It's more a matter of conveying the truth as it is perceived.)

If you are theologically and/or intellectually inclined, considering these issues has a definite impact on what we think about these issues and consequently the character of God.

But, Christians from all walks recognize that Christ is both necessary and sufficient (neglecting issues of sanctification and whether not-progressing is regressing) for the work of Grace.

Regardless of original sin, I know I need God. How that came to be is largely irrelevant.

The question of the "rest of scripture" is also something of a red-herring. We may agree to disagree on Genesis, but regardless of our fine-point arguing on hermeneutics, we actually tend to agree on the interpretation of the rest of scripture (at least Catholics with Catholics and protestants with protestants.)

A TE, RMWilliams, as I recall, was about as conservative on scripture as you could get -- hard-core calvinist, etc. The question of evolution had almost no impact outside of the CvE argument itself. (I'd start to bristle as his conversation would start to bring in elements of Calvinism. Heh.)

Make sense?