The Gap and The Sumer Creation Myth

[GenemZ]

I reckon I look like that sometimes when I wake up.

Not too shabby!

This is how I look when I wake up (when I can not find my glasses)....

 

[GenemZ]

What exactly does vain mean to you in that verse, meaning Isaiah 45:18? That same Hebrew word is also used in the next verse and is also translated as vain. Why would it mean one thing in a previous verse and something entirely different in the next verse? Let's look at the next verse for a moment.

It actually gets us back to Genesis 1:2.

For Isaiah 45:18 can be rendered from the Hebrew as follows... Context can dictate the meaning of certain words having potentially more than one meaning.


18 For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.

That's one reason why the GAP understanding exists.

And? The next verse. Here is how my pastor translated it from the Hebrew.

19 I have not spoken in secret,
in a dark place of the earth.

I said not unto the seed of Jacob,
'Seek you Me in vain/emptiness.'

I Jehovah/God speak righteousness.
I declare things that are right

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Great stuff here. Verse 10 says that God called the dry land “Earth” and the gathered waters He called “Seas.” What was the dry land called in the previous Gap World? What were the waters gathered together called in the previous Gap World? It sounds like God is first creating things here in Genesis chapter 1 with the six day creation because God is naming things here for the first time. If God had created these things prior in some sort of Gap World, why would He be naming things so late?

If the Gap Theory was true: Would not God have named these things previously?
If the Gap Theory was true: Should not Genesis chapter 1 have the included words as saying, “And God continued to call the dry land the same as He did before from of that old world as being called: “the Earth”?

But is that what Genesis chapter 1 says? Surely not. This is why the Gap Theory is a strained idea at best - IMO.

 

[GenemZ]

Great stuff here. Verse 10 says that God called the dry land “Earth” and the gathered waters He called “Seas.” What was the dry land called in the previous Gap World? What were the waters gathered together called in the previous Gap World?

What were they called?

Here you go!

I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.​

Jeremiah 4:23-26

Yes.. there were also humanoid beings in the prehistoric creation.
The Hebrew used a generic term for describing man. Neanderthal comes to mind.

This time around God created man in His image.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What were they called?

Here you go!

I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.​

Jeremiah 4:23-26

Yes.. there were also humanoid beings in the prehistoric creation.
The Hebrew used a generic term for describing man. Neanderthal comes to mind.

This time around God created man in His image.

This passage in Jeremiah is a future prophecy. Again, Genesis chapter 1 does not read like God is calling the Earth as it being a familiar term from some previous Gap World universe. When we read Genesis chapter 1 like a child in the English, we get the impression from the wording that God is first naming things for the first time. Things like... “God called the dry land, “Earth”.”
This sounds like a new thing going on here. If the Gap Theory Universe was true, then the wording should be different on verse 10 in Genesis 1.

 

[GenemZ]

This passage in Jeremiah is a future prophecy.

He quoted Genesis 1:2 in reference to a"future prophesy?"

One that came to pass when the Jews went into captivity to Nebuchadnezzar.

Its now a past prophesy.

You're great on not concentrating on the point being made. Genesis 1:2 refers to a terrible destruction. But?

Don't let that get in your way. ... you run too slow. (I thought you said you were done with me)

 

[sawdust]

Not too shabby!

This is how I look when I wake up (when I can not find my glasses)....

At least you're smiling.

 

[sawdust]

When we read Genesis chapter 1 like a child in the English, we get the impression from the wording that God is first naming things for the first time.

Maybe it's time to put off childish things.

1Cor.13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me

 

[JulieB67]

What exactly does vain mean to you in that verse, meaning Isaiah 45:18? That same Hebrew word is also used in the next verse and is also translated as vain. Why would it mean one thing in a previous verse and something entirely different in the next verse? Let's look at the next verse for a moment.

There are many different Hebrew words in the OT for vain. I just did a study and even counted each time the word was used -73 I think using about 13 different Hebrew words. And of course each of the words can have different meanings such as tohuw. But using that specific word should make us take notice when it comes to the creation because the word tohuw is only used 4 times when it comes to the word vain in the OT. Most of the time, there are other words used to imply, nothing, emptiness, etc as well as other meanings like deceit.

You noted verse 19 of Isaiah, but here's another verse with actually different uses of the word vain that would have been better suited if vain didn't mean a ruined desolate wasteland in verse 18.

This verse interestly enough uses the word vain twice and it's actually two different Hebrew words for both,


Isaiah 49:4 "Then I said, `I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.'

The first word is Hebrew word 7385 riyq- a worthless thing, in vain, empty, to no purpose, vanity.

The second is Hebrew word 1892 - hebel/habel- emptiness or vanity, something transitory and unsatisfactory, often used as a adv, altogether, vain, vanity.

Many of the words are similiar in nature. Especially when wanting to imply emptiness. But the fact that tohuw was used instead of a word like riyq completely separates the meaning when it comes to the creation itself.

If vain was just meant for nought when it comes to verse 18 I would think riyq would have been used. But it was specifically tohuw which takes us back to Genesis and even the hebrew word 922 bohuw, to be empy, an undistinguishable ruin:-emptiness, void.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He quoted Genesis 1:2 in reference to a"future prophesy?"

Come on now. You quoted Jeremiah 4:23-27 and not Genesis 1:2.
You instantly think, “Gap World” whenever you see Genesis 1:2 when it does not even say that.
There are no words in Genesis 1, or Jeremiah 4 that say,

“And God judged a previous world before
He created the Heavens and the Earth for mankind.”
(Gap Theory Influenced Translation).​

You think Genesis 1:2, and Jeremiah 4:23-27 both teach a Gap World, but you are creating a whole narrative in your mind based off the misinterpretation of one phrase in these verses that can easily be talking about something other than what you want it to mean.

You are simply seeing what you want to see. Thus, this is why it is impossible to show you otherwise, and why my defense in showing you the illogical inconstincies in Scripture (like Genesis 1:10) in lining up with a “Gap World Theory” is not helping you.

Again, if you are correct on the Gap World Theory, then Genesis 1:10 should not be worded in a way that makes it sound like God is first naming the Earth for the first time in the six day creation involving Adam and Eve (in Genesis 1). But of course you will refuse to see it because you want the Gap World Theory to be true. No matter what biblical evidence with a logical point is presented, you reject it out of hand. This is why I am moving on from discussing this topic with you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Maybe it's time to put off childish things.

1Cor.13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me

See, this is why you are having a problem with properly understanding Genesis 1:1-2. This kind of false hermeneutics is affecting your understanding on other verses. For you are quoting 1 Corinthians 13:11 out of it's greater context, as well. Paul is trying to correct the Corinthians on their speaking in tongues without an interpreter (See: 1 Corinthians 14:28), and so thus the Corinthians (at the time shortly before Paul had written the letter to them) were babbling nonsense like a baby or child would do; Thus, they spoke confusion. However, we know that... God is not the author of confusion (See: 1 Corinthians 14:33). The point is edifying others (See: the words variations of the word “edify” in 1 Corinthians 14:3-5, 1 Corinthians 14:12, 1 Corinthians 14:17, 1 Corinthians 14:26).

Anyways if we love our neighbor or brother, we will want them to be edified by spiritual knowledge and not babbling like babies. This is why Paul refers to in how he once talked like child in 1 Corinthians 13:11. This is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:1 that if I speak with the tongues of men and angels and yet have no love, he becomes as a tinkling symbol or clanging gong. This is what Paul is referring to when he is speaking about those who speak in tongues without an interpreter and thus, they do not edify others (i.e. they do not love others) because they are speaking like babies (children) where nobody can understand them.

 

[Davy]

Even with the interpretation upon this particular verse that you have. I still do not see how that warrants a whole imaginative worldview of a Gap. Usually Scripture has two or three witnesses. The witnesses you have brought forth are strained at best. But you can believe whatever you like. It's just not clearly shown in the Bible I have (the KJB).

You've been given more than enough Scripture witnesses about it, yet you say it's "imaginative". It's not per someone's imagination. There are more pastors and scholars than you know that know about it and agree. God simply has not shown you and it's pretty clear why, because you're more comfortable believing a tradition instead of wanting to realize the Scriptures on this are covering more. But that's alright, if you want to be that way towards God's Word. Each person must make their own choice how much of God's Word they want to understand, and ask Him for it. And it's a sure thing, He won't give us understanding in His Word unless we ask Him through His Son.

 

[DavidPT]

If vain was just meant for nought when it comes to verse 18 I would think riyq would have been used. But it was specifically tohuw which takes us back to Genesis and even the hebrew word 922 bohuw, to be empy, an undistinguishable ruin:-emptiness, void.

In both verses, 18 and 19, tohuw was used. No one should be thinking when tohuw was used in verse 19, that it takes us back to Genesis 1:2. And I'm guessing no one is thinking it does, so I'm not implying anyone thinks it does. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to make good sense, hermeneutically speaking, to apply tohuw one way in one verse, and in the very next verse apply it in a different manner altogether. Especially when the translators translated it as vain in both verses.

 

[DavidPT]

What were they called?

Here you go!

I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.​

Jeremiah 4:23-26

Yes.. there were also humanoid beings in the prehistoric creation.
The Hebrew used a generic term for describing man. Neanderthal comes to mind.

This time around God created man in His image.

Have you ever tried comparing anything in Jeremiah 4:23-26 with that of anything in Isaiah 13? Both passages speak about the heavens being black. Both passages speak about the Lord's fierce anger. Both passages involve the presence of the LORD. To name a few. Whether there is a connection here or not, maybe there is, maybe there isn't, yet I can't help but think about passages, such as Isaiah 13, when I'm considering what Jeremiah is prophesying about in Jeremiah 4:23-26.

And once again, since I have mentioned this before, prophecies predict future events, not past events. When Jeremiah initially gave the prophecy in Jeremiah 4:23-26, from his perspective at the time, he was prophesying about future events that hadn't even happened yet. Prophecies give advanced warnings of something. It would be pointless to warn someone in advance with prophetic events that already happened ages ago.

 

[DavidPT]

The Hebrew used a generic term for describing man. Neanderthal comes to mind.

Does Jesus' death on the cross cover their sins as well? Are any of them savable on judgment day?

 

[DavidPT]

This time around God created man in His image.

Were there also females during the gap, meaning women? According to Genesis 2:21-23, there was no such thing as a woman until God first formed one from the rib he took from Adam. And what did Adam say following that event? This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

If there were women existing during the gap, what were they called since they couldn't have been called women until Adam initially called them that? And not only that, how did they become women to begin with if God had not even, as of yet, taken a rib from man and made a woman?

 

[sawdust]

See, this is why you are having a problem with properly understanding Genesis 1:1-2.

I'm not the one having a problem. Isaiah said God did not create the earth tohuw but you insist He did. I believe Isaiah, not you.

And I'm not going to bother correcting you on what Paul meant about putting off childish things for it pertained to a lot more than tongues. It's how we got such a wonderful chapter on love.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You've been given more than enough Scripture witnesses about it, yet you say it's "imaginative". It's not per someone's imagination. There are more pastors and scholars than you know that know about it and agree. God simply has not shown you and it's pretty clear why, because you're more comfortable believing a tradition instead of wanting to realize the Scriptures on this are covering more. But that's alright, if you want to be that way towards God's Word. Each person must make their own choice how much of God's Word they want to understand, and ask Him for it. And it's a sure thing, He won't give us understanding in His Word unless we ask Him through His Son.

Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree in love, brother.
May you be well in the Lord.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not the one having a problem. Isaiah said God did not create the earth tohuw but you insist He did. I believe Isaiah, not you.

And I'm not going to bother correcting you on what Paul meant about putting off childish things for it pertained to a lot more than tongues. It's how we got such a wonderful chapter on love.

We appear to look at the Word of God in a different way.
I think it is best we move on.
Peace be unto you in the Lord.

 

[GenemZ]

Maybe it's time to put off childish things.

1Cor.13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me

Some wish to return to being carefree like a child.. Most of us do.. But, to do so, retreat into childish thinking. Regression.

Not knowing, that if they are willing for a season to suffer for righteousness sake, that God will "re-install" in us a childlike joy... but no longer with stubbornness and ignorance we could manifest as children.

In other words? To become childlike? We must first be willing to become an adult in our thinking. Standing alone in ourselves and God's Word before The Lord Jesus Christ concerning His Word.

Its the Lord who controls our inner state of being. Jesus promised for those who do His will and mature, they will find themselves entering into a joyous childlike inner happiness. But.. No longer thinking like a child.

Some here insist in retreating into being childish when they do not like being shown what they need to grow up in their understanding. They keep wanting to lock themselves in Sunday school thinking and emoting for children.

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”​

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he
said: “Truly I tell you, unless you are converted and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore,
whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name
welcomes me." Mat 18:1-5​

Jesus was saying.. If you want to know who is going to be the greatest in His kingdom?

It will be quietly known only by the one God transforms inwardly. Childlike - not childish inner state of mind. Adult and mature in thinking.

Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil
be infants, but in your thinking be adults." 1 Cor 14:20
​

I once overheard a pastor saying.... "We enter not into being a genius, but into the lifestyle of genius."

The following is stated from the secular genius point of view. It is true. We see it all the time in the arts and innovators.

“Genius is nothing more nor less than childhood recaptured at will.” Charles Baudelaire,​

That pastor noted.. "We enter the lifestyle of genius, not become a genius."

So... if one wants to know who is going to be one of the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven? They will know from what emanates (by God's grace) from within them being made evident by finding wisdom and knowledge and STABILITY in objective thinking.

Well?... Those who want to regress back by being childish? Demanding that time stand still and remain as it was when they were a child? They will not get a word I said. Yet, they can have God instill in them His tranquility and peace that is "childlike" but never childish.

What they need to get there is sound doctrine. Paul knew and accepted sadly that many would find sound doctrine distasteful and offensive in the face of their prejudice and bias.

For the time will come when they will not put up with/will not
endure sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they
will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what
their itching ears want to hear." 2 Tim 4:3​

That is the recipe for so much variety we find today in today's denominationalism. Each denomination attracts those wanting to hear what they have concocted to please their emotions beyond the fundamental doctrines.


So be it....