The "gap" theory

[TibiasDad]

I don't know how you concluded that I believe evolution is possible. Evolutionists reject your argument, obviously. I've given up trying to convince evolutionists that they are wrong.

I didn't mean to imply that you believe evolution possible, what I did mean to imply is that those who decry the old earth argument as only having value to those that are evolutionists are calling attention to something that is not true, not because evolutionists don't use the vast age of the universe to imply its necessity for evolution to work, they do, but that it has been shown time and time again from many different branches of science that evolution is mathematically impossible to have occurred even in the 14 billion years of time.

Of course evolutionists reject my argument, they reject yours as well! At the turn of the last century, evolutionists were king of the scientific hill, and every discipline of science bowed to its influence and bidding. In astronomy, the theory of the universe at the time was the Steady State theory, in which the universe has always existed in a continual ebb and flow. But by the late 1920's, Edwin Hubble had proven that the universe was expanding, which could only mean that the universe had a beginning which led to the "Big Bang theory" , a term incidentally coined as an epithet by the "Steady State" adherents because it suggested that the Bible's creation account might be true! Odd that the Christian argument would use it as an epithet of the evolutionary doctrine, when the evolutionists thought it supported the Bible!I

Doug

 

[Cis.jd]

The apparent age of the earth compared with the genealogies stated in the Bible create problems in the minds of many, both unbelievers and Christians. I believe that there is an answer. It is known as the "pre-Adamic creation" or gap theory. It presents the view that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a considerable, but unknown time.

The evidence for this view is as follows
1. The word "was" in verse 2 can just as readily be translated "became". Earlier editions of the NIV had this is as an alternative translation.

2. We need to know the difference between "create", "form" and "make". Watchman Nee (Mystery of Creation) puts it like this:

"Genesis and Geology 11 In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mould as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing materials."

3. Other references confirm that God created the earth as an inhabitable place initially:
Isaiah 45:18 (Darby): "For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else."
The same verse, NIV: "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."'

In Genesis 1:1 we read that God created. In Exodus 20:11 we read that God God made the heavens and the earth and the sea. It's not the only reference to God forming the earth we now inhabit.

If this interpretation is correct, then it removes many of the objections that doubters and sceptics have about the Genesis account. Personally, I believe the "gap theory" to be correct. To me, it fits the character of God. Why would He create something formless, empty, a wasteland?

This is not an issue of salvation nor a doctrine meant to divide. It is an explanation that was considered correct by some in the early church and also some early Jewish writings mention it. This was before modern geology began to sow seeds of doubt as to the accuracy of the Genesis account.

This subject matter is covered in "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the subject.

I don't believe in the gap theory. I think the term "Inspired by God" was highly misunderstood by many christians. The writers of the Bible being inspired by God doesn't mean they where given all forms of knowledge about the natural universe. God chose them to write for a purpose, the purpose of revelation. The Bible should be a personal guide to being a better person and to have a relationship with God, it was never made to teach the facts about his design word for word.

Therefore Genesis' creation story is not literal and it's terms are probably written in a way for the people of that time to understand.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don't believe in the gap theory. I think the term "Inspired by God" was highly misunderstood by many christians. The writers of the Bible being inspired by God doesn't mean they where given all forms of knowledge about the natural universe. God chose them to write for a purpose, the purpose of revelation. The Bible should be a personal guide to being a better person and to have a relationship with God, it was never made to teach the facts about his design word for word.

Therefore Genesis' creation story is not literal and it's terms are probably written in a way for the people of that time to understand.

That is a really big stretch. How do you know it's not literal? Lord Jesus quoted the Bible constantly. Around 30% of the NT is quotes from the OT. If Genesis is not literal, then there is no basis for Christianity.

 

[DamianWarS]

The apparent age of the earth compared with the genealogies stated in the Bible create problems in the minds of many, both unbelievers and Christians. I believe that there is an answer. It is known as the "pre-Adamic creation" or gap theory. It presents the view that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a considerable, but unknown time.

The evidence for this view is as follows
1. The word "was" in verse 2 can just as readily be translated "became". Earlier editions of the NIV had this is as an alternative translation.

2. We need to know the difference between "create", "form" and "make". Watchman Nee (Mystery of Creation) puts it like this:

"Genesis and Geology 11 In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mould as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing materials."

3. Other references confirm that God created the earth as an inhabitable place initially:
Isaiah 45:18 (Darby): "For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else."
The same verse, NIV: "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."'

In Genesis 1:1 we read that God created. In Exodus 20:11 we read that God God made the heavens and the earth and the sea. It's not the only reference to God forming the earth we now inhabit.

If this interpretation is correct, then it removes many of the objections that doubters and sceptics have about the Genesis account. Personally, I believe the "gap theory" to be correct. To me, it fits the character of God. Why would He create something formless, empty, a wasteland?

This is not an issue of salvation nor a doctrine meant to divide. It is an explanation that was considered correct by some in the early church and also some early Jewish writings mention it. This was before modern geology began to sow seeds of doubt as to the accuracy of the Genesis account.

This subject matter is covered in "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the subject.

does this gap theory also explain why a disembodied light is on day 1 then all the way at day 4 the sun is created? perhaps forcing a literal read was never how it was meant to be, certainly not adding information in between the lines to force reconcile it. Is not the account exactly how it is perfect? why the need to fill in the blanks?

 

[Sam81]

If scientists would have examined Adam the day after he was created they would swear he was a 30 year old man... the idea of him being one day old would be completely unscientific and laughable. Apparently it's never occurred to a lot of Christians that the same truth possibly applies to all creation.

The universe is old because God created an old universe. He works in mysterious ways.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The apparent age of the earth compared with the genealogies stated in the Bible create problems in the minds of many, both unbelievers and Christians. I believe that there is an answer. It is known as the "pre-Adamic creation" or gap theory. It presents the view that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a considerable, but unknown time.

The evidence for this view is as follows
1. The word "was" in verse 2 can just as readily be translated "became". Earlier editions of the NIV had this is as an alternative translation.

2. We need to know the difference between "create", "form" and "make". Watchman Nee (Mystery of Creation) puts it like this:

"Genesis and Geology 11 In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mould as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing materials."

3. Other references confirm that God created the earth as an inhabitable place initially:
Isaiah 45:18 (Darby): "For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else."
The same verse, NIV: "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."'

In Genesis 1:1 we read that God created. In Exodus 20:11 we read that God God made the heavens and the earth and the sea. It's not the only reference to God forming the earth we now inhabit.

If this interpretation is correct, then it removes many of the objections that doubters and sceptics have about the Genesis account. Personally, I believe the "gap theory" to be correct. To me, it fits the character of God. Why would He create something formless, empty, a wasteland?

This is not an issue of salvation nor a doctrine meant to divide. It is an explanation that was considered correct by some in the early church and also some early Jewish writings mention it. This was before modern geology began to sow seeds of doubt as to the accuracy of the Genesis account.

This subject matter is covered in "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the subject.

"The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple".
Psalm 119:130
The creation account, considered written by Moses in Genesis, was originally given to a people who were of a"simple" mindset. We should consider that today we are far more advanced. Knowledge has unfolded creation in many ways. It has expanded its boundaries from the first two pages of Genesis. We can either accept that God is slowly unveiling creation to us or we can remain in the simplicity of scripture. Be blessed.

 

[Running2win]

If scientists would have examined Adam the day after he was created they would swear he was a 30 year old man... the idea of him being one day old would be completely unscientific and laughable. Apparently it's never occurred to a lot of Christians that the same truth possibly applies to all creation.

The universe is old because God created an old universe. He works in mysterious ways.

Bingo! This answers all the questions. Trees were mature and had many rings, the visible light was already in place from far away, and God set in motion the universe and expansion, and any other light is only 6000 years old.

The old world that God destroyed in the Flood was different, so any so called scientific measurements from what we observe now would be skewed.

Again, it comes to trusting God and what is revealed in His word and not doubting it happened as recorded. Same way with salvation. If we don't believe the word, how can we be saved? We didn't see the resurrection of Jesus, but we believe. Why? The word tells us and is true.

 

[TibiasDad]

If scientists would have examined Adam the day after he was created they would swear he was a 30 year old man... the idea of him being one day old would be completely unscientific and laughable. Apparently it's never occurred to a lot of Christians that the same truth possibly applies to all creation.

The universe is old because God created an old universe. He works in mysterious ways.

Really? Could he have not been a lot 8 or 20 year old man? Does God ever specify that he made the universe to "look old" but is really just hours old? And don't you contradict yourself in the last sentence of your post; "The universe is old because God created an old universe"? Shouldn't you have said "The universe is old because God created an old looking universe"?

Why would God's create something that looks to be one thing, but is really another, and then point to that information as being expressive of who he is? (Psm 19:1-2) Would that not make him reveal himself as a deceiver, portraying the Cosmos as billions of years old, but not stating the fact explicitly that it is really just thousands of years old?

Think, people, think! You're not using the brain God gave you!

Doug

 

[Cis.jd]

That is a really big stretch. How do you know it's not literal? Lord Jesus quoted the Bible constantly. Around 30% of the NT is quotes from the OT. If Genesis is not literal, then there is no basis for Christianity.

Lord Jesus also spoke in parables. People quote stories that are not factual because of the message behind it or because people just could identify with it easier. That doesn't mean we should now take it literally.

Here is an example why we can't the Bible (much more Genesis) literal when it comes to natural information. Tell me, is the moon an actual body of light or is it just a satellite reflecting light from the sun?

 

[klutedavid]

That is a really big stretch. How do you know it's not literal? Lord Jesus quoted the Bible constantly. Around 30% of the NT is quotes from the OT. If Genesis is not literal, then there is no basis for Christianity.

Is the early Genesis text to be read in a literal way, or is the early Genesis text an allegory?

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Is the 'tree of life' a real tree?

Is the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' also a real tree?

 

[SANTOSO]

I was appointed before the world, before the start, before the earth's beginnings.I was appointed before the world, before the start, before the earth's beginnings. apparent age of the earth compared with the genealogies stated in the Bible create problems in the minds of many, both unbelievers and Christians. I believe that there is an answer. It is known as the "pre-Adamic creation" or gap theory. It presents the view that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a considerable, but unknown time.

The evidence for this view is as follows
1. The word "was" in verse 2 can just as readily be translated "became". Earlier editions of the NIV had this is as an alternative translation.

2. We need to know the difference between "create", "form" and "make". Watchman Nee (Mystery of Creation) puts it like this:

"Genesis and Geology 11 In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mould as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing materials."

3. Other references confirm that God created the earth as an inhabitable place initially:
Isaiah 45:18 (Darby): "For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else."
The same verse, NIV: "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."'

In Genesis 1:1 we read that God created. In Exodus 20:11 we read that God God made the heavens and the earth and the sea. It's not the only reference to God forming the earth we now inhabit.

If this interpretation is correct, then it removes many of the objections that doubters and sceptics have about the Genesis account. Personally, I believe the "gap theory" to be correct. To me, it fits the character of God. Why would He create something formless, empty, a wasteland?

This is not an issue of salvation nor a doctrine meant to divide. It is an explanation that was considered correct by some in the early church and also some early Jewish writings mention it. This was before modern geology began to sow seeds of doubt as to the accuracy of the Genesis account.

This subject matter is covered in "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the subject.

Hi Pete,

In regard to : The apparent age of the earth compared with the genealogies stated in the Bible create problems in the minds of many, both unbelievers and Christians.

This is my answer, it comes from Complete Jewish Bible:

I was appointed before the world, before the start, before the earth's BEGINNINGS.-Proverbs 8:23

So the earth has more than one beginning!

GBU

 

[Aussie Pete]

does this gap theory also explain why a disembodied light is on day 1 then all the way at day 4 the sun is created? perhaps forcing a literal read was never how it was meant to be, certainly not adding information in between the lines to force reconcile it. Is not the account exactly how it is perfect? why the need to fill in the blanks?

The account is exactly as God wants it to be. The common interpretation of the original Hebrew may not be. If the gap theory is correct, it answers a lot of criticism from sceptics. That's all I will say with confidence. I have other theories, such as Lucifer being the ruler of the pre-Adam creation, but they are more conjecture and I would not trouble the forum with those theories.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Is the early Genesis text to be read in a literal way, or is the early Genesis text an allegory?

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Is the 'tree of life' a real tree?

Is the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' also a real tree?

Why not? And how do you determine what is allegory and what is literal? Why would God tell us a fairy tale when He places such emphasis on His word?

 

[Aussie Pete]

"The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple".
Psalm 119:130
The creation account, considered written by Moses in Genesis, was originally given to a people who were of a"simple" mindset. We should consider that today we are far more advanced. Knowledge has unfolded creation in many ways. It has expanded its boundaries from the first two pages of Genesis. We can either accept that God is slowly unveiling creation to us or we can remain in the simplicity of scripture. Be blessed.

I have to disagree. The ancients were amazingly developed. Humanity is no more intelligent now than thousands of years ago. Technology has improved, yes. The flood certainly impeded man's progress. Also the confusion of language that God caused as the result of the Tower of Babel.

I believe the human race is going backwards now. Many people cannot spell, have few maths skills and lack manual skills to repair or make things. Try getting the right change if the salesperson has to work it out mentally. Some adolescents communicate with grunts, as cavemen apparently did (who knows for sure?). And now we have reverted to emojis. The Egyptians wrote like this thousand of years ago.

 

[klutedavid]

Why not? And how do you determine what is allegory and what is literal? Why would God tell us a fairy tale when He places such emphasis on His word?

Hello Pete.

I was asking you how you read those verses, I was not stating a position as such.

Who decides whether we see symbols in Genesis or we take it literally?

Well, I don't trust anyone else, so it's ultimately up to me to decide that. The onus is also on you to decide yourself how you will interpret the text.

For me, 'the tree of life' will always be a symbol of Jesus Christ. I am very confident that immortality is not gained by merely biting into a fruit.

How do you read the following verse.

Deuteronomy 25:4
You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.

 

[Scott Husted]

The apparent age of the earth compared with the genealogies stated in the Bible create problems in the minds of many, both unbelievers and Christians. I believe that there is an answer. It is known as the "pre-Adamic creation" or gap theory. It presents the view that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a considerable, but unknown time.

The evidence for this view is as follows
1. The word "was" in verse 2 can just as readily be translated "became". Earlier editions of the NIV had this is as an alternative translation.

2. We need to know the difference between "create", "form" and "make". Watchman Nee (Mystery of Creation) puts it like this:

"Genesis and Geology 11 In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mould as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing materials."

3. Other references confirm that God created the earth as an inhabitable place initially:
Isaiah 45:18 (Darby): "For thus saith Jehovah who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he who established it, -- not as waste did he create it: he formed it to be inhabited: -- I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else."
The same verse, NIV: "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."'

In Genesis 1:1 we read that God created. In Exodus 20:11 we read that God God made the heavens and the earth and the sea. It's not the only reference to God forming the earth we now inhabit.

If this interpretation is correct, then it removes many of the objections that doubters and sceptics have about the Genesis account. Personally, I believe the "gap theory" to be correct. To me, it fits the character of God. Why would He create something formless, empty, a wasteland?

This is not an issue of salvation nor a doctrine meant to divide. It is an explanation that was considered correct by some in the early church and also some early Jewish writings mention it. This was before modern geology began to sow seeds of doubt as to the accuracy of the Genesis account.

This subject matter is covered in "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the subject.

If it ends it for ones personal journey of reconciling science and scripture it ends it, but for some it will be more like Cinderella's ugly stepsister's foot being forced to fit into a glass slipper, and still others would say why should it even matter.

A thousand years as a day to God in a literal sense would mean God perceives a thousand years as a day; a thousand years in the life of the Cosmo's is insignificant (and how much more so to God (even though the moment of an asteroid impact is); regardless the process of time can not be discounted.

I believe it was a Rabbi who said that everything began with something that was no bigger than a mustard seed ... but without a link to consciousness/perception it is all irrelevant.

An apparent number emerges out of this deduction (3) which is found in countless forms in the Bible, and all of which denote perception.

 

[DamianWarS]

The account is exactly as God wants it to be. The common interpretation of the original Hebrew may not be. If the gap theory is correct, it answers a lot of criticism from sceptics. That's all I will say with confidence. I have other theories, such as Lucifer being the ruler of the pre-Adam creation, but they are more conjecture and I would not trouble the forum with those theories.

especially since there were no fallen angels (or pre-fallen) that went by the name Lucifer per-Adam creation.

I think the largest problem is this obsession to fix the account to force a literal read. I think the account is perfect the way it is and needs nothing added to it and I believe the account foreshadows the beginning all the way to the end or final Sabbath in tune with a chiastic theme embedded in the account operating at many levels and consistent with Herbaric logic. For example to a dark unformed chaos God speaks light, he forms it and organizes the chaos (day 1-3) then he fills it and multiplies it and gives it life (days 4-6) then finally ushers in rest. These are powerful redemptive analogies that fit the biblical development of Israel, the process of salvation in an individual, foreshadows Christ and all the way to a prophetic roadmap from Genesis to Revelation but all we can do is argue about how we have to reconcile it to fit a western scientific mindset. Meanwhile, we leave the depth of knowledge packed inside untouched. I think the topic of the literalness of the account is not only the most uninteresting but the most unimportant aspect and we waste our time talking about it when there is so much more the account offers us.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hello Pete.

I was asking you how you read those verses, I was not stating a position as such.

Who decides whether we see symbols in Genesis or we take it literally?

Well, I don't trust anyone else, so it's ultimately up to me to decide that. The onus is also on you to decide yourself how you will interpret the text.

For me, 'the tree of life' will always be a symbol of Jesus Christ. I am very confident that immortality is not gained by merely biting into a fruit.

How do you read the following verse.

Deuteronomy 25:4
You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.

Literally and as a metaphor. I see the Tree of Life likewise.

 

[JulieB67]

The word used is 'was', it was not ' became' which you need to even begin this whole creation before creation model which has no scriptural backup.

There is plenty of scriptural backup throughout the bible. Here's a copy and paste I put on another thread.


Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep

was
1961 hayah
hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.

void
922
bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:
KJV - emptiness, void.

So we see that the earth "became" without form and void.

How did it become that way even before man was created in the flesh?

II Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"
II Peter 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

That's the world flood that happened millions if not billions of years ago.

We are not talking about Noah's flood. Not one Christian is willingly ignorant about that. But not many realize that "by the word of God" -take into account what I posted about the translation of the word "was" that the heavens were of old and the earth was standing out of the water and in the water. That world perished.

In Isaiah 45:18; "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."

He didn't create it in vain, he formed it to be inhabited and it was.

Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light

Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

Notice how the the mountains trembled and the hills moved lightly? This is what we consider "our big bang" This is why you can look at maps today and it looks like everything used to fit together. God basically shook the earth in his anger. No more life, dinosaurs, etc. God didn't make the mountains tremble and the hills move during Noah's flood.

Jeremiah 4:25 "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Again, this is not Noah's flood. We had Noah and his family.

Jeremiah 4:26 "I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

It was paradise until Satan's downfall.

In Job we have a deeper study if one wants to dive into it.

Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

God is asking Job where were you if you have understanding?

Job 38:5 "Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?"

Job 38:6 "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"

So we see the morning stars sang together after the foundations were fastened.

Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."

God is telling Job he made the behemoth at the same time he made Job, think about that.

And anyone reading God's description of the behemoth knows we are not talking about a water ox. No ox has the tail of a cedar tree.

But there was definitely an age before this one. And it makes sense.

 

[Aussie Pete]

There is plenty of scriptural backup throughout the bible. Here's a copy and paste I put on another thread.


Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep

was
1961 hayah
hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.

void
922
bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:
KJV - emptiness, void.

So we see that the earth "became" without form and void.

How did it become that way even before man was created in the flesh?

II Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"
II Peter 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

That's the world flood that happened millions if not billions of years ago.

We are not talking about Noah's flood. Not one Christian is willingly ignorant about that. But not many realize that "by the word of God" -take into account what I posted about the translation of the word "was" that the heavens were of old and the earth was standing out of the water and in the water. That world perished.

In Isaiah 45:18; "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."

He didn't create it in vain, he formed it to be inhabited and it was.

Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light

Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

Notice how the the mountains trembled and the hills moved lightly? This is what we consider "our big bang" This is why you can look at maps today and it looks like everything used to fit together. God basically shook the earth in his anger. No more life, dinosaurs, etc. God didn't make the mountains tremble and the hills move during Noah's flood.

Jeremiah 4:25 "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Again, this is not Noah's flood. We had Noah and his family.

Jeremiah 4:26 "I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

It was paradise until Satan's downfall.

In Job we have a deeper study if one wants to dive into it.

Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

God is asking Job where were you if you have understanding?

Job 38:5 "Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?"

Job 38:6 "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"

So we see the morning stars sang together after the foundations were fastened.

Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."

God is telling Job he made the behemoth at the same time he made Job, think about that.

And anyone reading God's description of the behemoth knows we are not talking about a water ox. No ox has the tail of a cedar tree.

But there was definitely an age before this one. And it makes sense.

Nicely put. Thanks