Gap Theory?

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2004

nephilimiyr said:
The Hebrew word hayah is the word "was" in English in the second verse. Strongs put's the meaning as to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.

Now try and say the passage like this:

And the earth came to be without form, or

And the earth had become without form, or

And the earth had come to pass without form

The Hebrew word Tohuw is the word "form" in Gen. 1:2. Strong's put's the meaning as formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness. Here's a list of further understanding of the word.
a-nothingness, empty space
b-that which is empty or unreal (of Idols)
c-wasteland, wilderness
d-place of chaos
e-Vanity

Now try and say the passage like this:

And the earth came to be nothingness; And the earth came to be a wasteland; And the earth came to be a wilderness; And the earth came to be a place of chaos

And the earth had become without form; And the earth had become nothingness; And the earth had become a wasteland; And the earth had become a wilderness; And the earth had become a place of chaos

Bohuw is the Hebrew word for "void" in Genesis 1:2. Strongs put's the meaning as emptiness, void, waste.

Isaiah 34:11,But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of EMPTINESS.
Emptiness is the word bohuw in use and is the word "void" in Gen. 1:2. The word Bohuw is generally employed throught the Bible in connection with the desolation of a city or nation. It also connotes judgment from God. in the Isaiah passage above, the Lord's judgment results in the desolation of that nation.

Also confusion is the Hebrew word tohuw, the same tohuw used in Genesis 1:2 that in the English is "form".

In Jeremiah 4:23 we see both tohuw and bohuw employed together again. Besides Genesis 1:2 this is the only other place the the two words are used in concert with each other in the same way as in Genesis 1:2.
Jer. 4:23, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Here once again both tohuw and the word bohuw is employed and is used to discribe destruction of the earth as a result of judgment from God. Don't you see it as very interesting how similar this verse is written like the Gen. 1:2 verse? but it isn't talking about a glorious creation that was made very good but is talking about an earth made desolate as the result of judgment from God.

Even if "hayah" were to be translated as, "was." It still makes sense!

The Hebrew divides the first and second verses with a pause of separation. The Masoretic text used to footnote this factor (I'm not sure if it still does). It was written to be read out loud to the ancient Jews with a dramatic effect. They did not have plays, nor movies back then. When read, there was to be understood that there was to be a pause after verse one, and then a continuation onward. In movies we can see it in scenes where one scene fades out, and then fades into another...

Just picture Henry Ford as the god of the Model T... Then:

"In the beginning, Henry Ford created the Model T"

"And, the Model T was on cinder blocks, rusting out with a smashed front end. "

It was stated as being "was" that way. But, from being able to understand the language one would know automatically that it had to BECOME that way!

The Bible starts from the beginning of creation... then fades into a point in time, and in doing so, places the hearer at that point in time! It was read as to recreate in the mind of the hearer seeing that historical moment as if they were there! It placed them there as a witness to the truth!

That is why so many GAP scholars assume that the world had to become "Tohu wa bohu!" For, they well knew it could not have come from God's hand that way. And, technically, "hayah", can be used to mean "became," but it causes problems for others.

One more time!

"In the beginning Henry Ford created the Model T."

(pause... now fade into next verse...)

"And the Model T was on cinder blocks, rusting away, with a smashed front end."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

RVincent · Mar 1, 2004

The Masoretic text used to footnote this factor (I'm not sure if it still does).

genez, I am very interested in this.

I know what the Moassorah is, but I do not have one.

Is there one online?

I would love to see a Massoratic reference to "was"!

sawdust · Mar 1, 2004

Breetai said:
God could've easily created them with that knowledge. They weren't created as infants, they were created as adults and probably with a fair amount of knowledge as well.

I'm still trying to figure out where I stand. I believe that man was literally created from dust 6000 years ago. There appears to be evidence of some kind of life on earth from before 6000 years ago (mainly dinosaurs, humanoid species, pre-historic plants, etc.). Was the earth re-created from chaos 6000 years ago? Were the 'sons of god' around the earth more then 6000 years ago? How old are the angels? Some of these are very tough questions that I'm not sure we were even meant to know the answers to in this lifetime.

Sometimes I almost feel like doing what Rene Descartes did and reject everytime and start anew.

On the basis they were not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and death is defined as the last "enemy", I would have to say they were not created with that knowledge. Besides, you're an adult Breetai have you ever experienced death? I don't mean have you died, obviously, but lost someone to death. If so did death mean something more before or after the experience? There is a difference between the accumulation of data and experiencing that data. Even if they knew the "theory of death" this doesn't mean they understood the "reality" of it. I think there is a difference and I think it's only in the latter that meaning can be found. And isn't "meaning" what we really search for? If so, why? My suggestion is because once we have the "meaning" of something, then we also have control of it. Does it not therefore surprise you why God is rejected? For we cannot and never will have control of God no matter how much we understand Him and relate to Him. We seek to understand the universe because we think to control it. Oh, we may not consciously begin that way, but ultimately that is what drives us.
The irony is we consciously know we cannot control it, it is far too big, but underneath out logic, our passion for reason, is a malignancy that demands we be lord of the cosmos. I guess what I'm trying to say here is..."don't fall for the lie". It comes in many shapes and forms, but it all adds up to the same thing spoken of by the serpent in the garden.
I understand your frustration of not knowing the "answers" but I also want you to understand the trap that lies within seeking. Not that I am suggesting seeking in itself is bad, but the enemy has a laid a trap in the midst of it that one must be aware of.
take care

sawdust · Mar 1, 2004

genez said:
One more time!

"In the beginning Henry Ford created the Model T."

(pause... now fade into next verse...)

"And the Model T was on cinder blocks, rusting away, with a smashed front end."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Thanks Genez. When you put it like that with the pause effect it makes me appreciate the verses far more. Gee, I almost cried over the Model T example.
I am a silly billy!

nephilimiyr · Mar 1, 2004

RVincent said:
Please forgive me, because there are eight pages here, I didn't bother reading all of the entries. I do not know if what I am posting has been posted.

I believe in a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.

The common argument against this is that it came about recently, due to geological discoveries concerning the age of the earth. In other words, when science determined that the earth was millions of years old, apologists invented the gap theory.

"Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years. The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917,
p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Epíscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered evidence for the ancient origin of earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is groundless.

Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7)."

WOW, thanks RVincent! That certainly shows you've done your homework.

Yes I have already come to the belief that the thought of the world being very old and there being a gap or an interval of time between Gen. 1-2 is not new. It is not and never was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology. It has been believed by alot of people throughout history to be what the word of God says and I do believe that that is what the ancient hebrews, the Israelites believed as well.

The arguement that some make that the belief in the gap theory is new is totally false! It was not made up to reconcile anything!

Thank you RV

RVincent · Mar 1, 2004

You're welcome. I was very fortunate to find that on the internet. Can't remember where, but I saved it.

EDITTED: here's a link, scroll down and you'll see it. I don't know anything else about the website or its doctrine:

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/BT/versesofgenesis.htm

nephilimiyr · Mar 1, 2004

genez said:
One more time!

"In the beginning Henry Ford created the Model T."

(pause... now fade into next verse...)

"And the Model T was on cinder blocks, rusting away, with a smashed front end."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

That was very well put. I myself try to find different ways, anologies to use that best discribes the thought.

I've throughout this thread tried to say what you said in one post. I've known that the "was" can stay interpreted as "was" and still convey the same thought of a gap but I still question whether it should've been translated that way.

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2004

RVincent said:
genez, I am very interested in this.

I know what the Moassorah is, but I do not have one.

Is there one online?

I would love to see a Massoratic reference to "was"!

The reference was not to the word "was." It was to the fact that there was to be a stop after verse one. Pause... and then a continuation. I am in the process of trying to document this for you.
Grace and peace... GeneZ

Breetai · Mar 1, 2004

If a hardcore creationist comes here, they're gonna go crazy.

I'm just going through the Dead Sea Scrolls in english right now(Vermes edition), so I'll tell you if I find anything interesting about the gap theory. So far it looks like all of the Genesis commentaries and apocryphon don't have the beginning of Genesis due to the sands of time.

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2004

RVincent said:
genez, I am very interested in this.

I know what the Moassorah is, but I do not have one.

Is there one online?

I would love to see a Massoratic reference to "was"!

I found it... I am quoting from "Without Form and Void," by the late Arthur C. Custance... Chapter 1, page 14. (The Hebrew fonts can not be transcribed here)

According to the Revised Edition of Chambers's Encyclopedia
published in 1860, under the heading "Genesis", the view which was
then being popularized by Buckland and others to the effect that an
interval of unknown duration was to be interposed between Gen. 1.1
and 1.2 was already to be found in the Midrash. In his great work,
The Legends of the Jews, Louis Ginsberg has put into continuous
narrative a precis of their legends, as far as possible in the original
phrase sand terms. In Volume 1 which covers the period from the
Creation to Jacob, he has this excerpt on Genesis 1:
"Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things
earthly created by God. He made several other worlds
before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was
pleased with none until He created ours."
Clearly this reflects the tradition under lying the translation which
appears in the Targum of Onkelos to be noted below.
Furthermore, in the Massoretic Text in which the Jewish scholars
tried to incorporate enough "indicators" to guide the reader as to
correct punctuation there is one small mark which is technically
known as Rebhia which is classified as a "disjunctive accent" in-
tended to notify the reader that he should pause before proceeding to
the next verse. In short, this mark indicates a "break" in the text.
Such a mark appears at the end of Genesis 1.1. This mark has been
noted by several scholars including Luther. It is one indication
among others, that the initial waw ( ) which introduces verse 2
should be rendered "but" rather than "and", a dis-junctive rather
than a con-junctive.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

RVincent · Mar 1, 2004

Thank you.

Is Louis Ginsberg also known as Christian Ginsburg? I know he did a translation of the Massorah.

GenemZ · Mar 1, 2004

nephilimiyr said:
That was very well put. I myself try to find different ways, anologies to use that best discribes the thought.

I've throughout this thread tried to say what you said in one post. I've known that the "was" can stay interpreted as "was" and still convey the same thought of a gap but I still question whether it should've been translated that way.

Please, believe me when I say.... I did not think of that on my own. When the thought came to me I knew it was not of myself! I learned from it, just as you did now.

I see you are interested in Genesis 6? That is another key area of interest for me. Amazing truths can be harvested from a proper understanding of that chapter. Yes, angels could have sex (at that time in history)... The elect angels are now all celibate by God's grace. But, there was no need for that before the creation of man in God's image. Should we go there now? Or, stay with the GAP at this time?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

nephilimiyr · Mar 1, 2004

Breetai said:
If a hardcore creationist comes here, they're gonna go crazy.

Shhhhhhhhhh....just don't tell them we're here, besides they're too busy argueing with the theistic evolutionists!

nephilimiyr · Mar 1, 2004

genez said:
Please, believe me when I say.... I did not think of that on my own. When the thought came to me I knew it was not of myself! I learned from it, just as you did now.

I know what your saying!

I see you are interested in Genesis 6? That is another key area of interest for me. Amazing truths can be harvested from a proper understanding of that chapter. Yes, angels could have sex (at that time in history)... The elect angels are now all celibate by God's grace. But, there was no need for that before the creation of man in God's image. Should we go there now? Or, stay with the GAP at this time?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Well we all would love for you to join in with us then!
http://www.christianforums.com/t96250Thread on the giants of Gen. 6

Breetai · Mar 1, 2004

Shhhhhhhhhh....just don't tell them we're here, besides they're too busy argueing with the theistic evolutionists!

Gotcha! I'll just be quiet.

Breetai · Mar 1, 2004

I see you are interested in Genesis 6?

Ya! Like Neph said, feel free to join us. We've been at it for a few days now.

nephilimiyr · Mar 2, 2004

Breetai said:
Gotcha! I'll just be quiet.

Actually I really didn't mean that but only wanted to show my sense of humor.

Breetai · Mar 2, 2004

Actually I really didn't mean that but only wanted to show my sense of humor.

What sense of humour?

nephilimiyr · Mar 2, 2004

Breetai said:
What sense of humour?

Watch it buddie, I just blessed you!

GenemZ · Mar 2, 2004

lucaspa said:
Seriously, I'm not playing with you and I am giving you a try. All your language has said that a literal Satan was in a literal Garden and tempted a literal Eve to eat a literal fruit from a literal Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then a literal God gives a metaphorical curse. I'm seriously asking why the rest of it is literal but the curse is not.

The curse was real. In what way do see it as metaphorical?

GeneZ

Gap Theory?

Well-Known Member

Onions make me gassy.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Onions make me gassy.

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Well-Known Member

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Well-Known Member

Onions make me gassy.

Well-Known Member

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency