- May 19, 2015
- 125,549
- 28,532
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
This is an intersting commentary concerning the so called "Genesis Gap", that the world could have possibly existed as a living planet, but it was destroyed by God by water because of it being corrupt and evil.
The same thing happens again with the flood of Noah.
Any comments or thoughts on this?
http://associate.com/library/mirrors/ichthys.com/sr2-copy.htm
As Chafer and others have surmised, between Genesis 1:1 and what follows beginning in verse two, we are to understand a break or "gap" in the flow of the discourse.(1) The traditional translation of the Hebrew phrase bereshith (בראשית) as "in the beginning" is an acceptable rendering, but tends to be somewhat misleading.(2) In the Hebrew (as in the Greek equivalent en archei: ἐν ἀρχῇ), there is no definite article, no "the". Semantically, the difference may seem small enough, but the problem with the traditional translation is that it seems to link the sentence forward, connecting it without interruption to what immediately follows.
According to such interpretations, Genesis 1:1 would then be a summary of the seven days of creation (and what follows an expansion), rather than what it actually is, a straight-forward statement of the fact of God's initial creation of the universe (against which the re-construction of the world is then set).(3) This view, however, is one which the language of Genesis 1:1 cannot be easily made to bear.
First of all, the opening sentence of the Bible (taken by itself, and examined without any preconceptions) purports to be just what we are suggesting here: an historical description of God's first action vis-à-vis the material universe, namely His original creation of it. On the other hand, problems for the alternative summary-statement theory arise as soon as we move on to verse two. For the earth is there described as being "without form, and void" (KJV).
But if verse one is not an actual description of the creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather merely a summary of the whole seven days that follow, then how are we to explain the fact that there is no re-statement of its initial creation in the detailed account? Where did this formless "earth" come from?
Are we to suppose that it did somehow exist before original creation? That would be quite a blow for all who genuinely believe in a God who transcends the universe and in His ex nihilo creation of it (see section II below). If, on the other hand, earth really was originally created "from nothing", it seems beyond odd not to mention that creation in the detailed account of the seven days (if indeed we are to assume that they represent original creation), and, on that account, strained to assume that the bald statement of its creation in verse one is a mere summary.
A second problem with taking Genesis 1:1 as a summary of what follows rather than an event in its own right is to be found in the grammatical connection between verses one and two. Following the description of God's ex nihilo creation of heaven and earth in verse one, we have, in the Hebrew, a disjunctive construction at the beginning of verse two. The combination of the connective waw and a nominal form (as opposed to a finite verb) indicates strong contrast in the Hebrew. That is to say, what we have beginning verse two is a "but", not an "and".(4) Grammatically speaking then, we are on much firmer ground in translating "but the earth . . .", rather than "and the earth . . ." (KJV). This rendering to which the actual language of the verse points so insistently (despite all speculation to the contrary) has produced mere head-scratching for those who hold to the summary interpretation.
But for those who are willing to follow where the Word of God actually leads, it is an unmistakable sign post, one which points inescapably to a definite gap between the Bible's two initial verses, a hiatus in the action which demands attention and invites investigation. Clearly, something dramatic must have transpired to account for this stark contrast between verses one and two. The Genesis Gap, therefore, is unmistakably present in the original Hebrew, representing a clear interruption in the narrative between God's original, perfect creation of the world, and His subsequent re-creation of a world ruined by Satan's revolt:.................
.
.
The same thing happens again with the flood of Noah.
Any comments or thoughts on this?
http://associate.com/library/mirrors/ichthys.com/sr2-copy.htm
As Chafer and others have surmised, between Genesis 1:1 and what follows beginning in verse two, we are to understand a break or "gap" in the flow of the discourse.(1) The traditional translation of the Hebrew phrase bereshith (בראשית) as "in the beginning" is an acceptable rendering, but tends to be somewhat misleading.(2) In the Hebrew (as in the Greek equivalent en archei: ἐν ἀρχῇ), there is no definite article, no "the". Semantically, the difference may seem small enough, but the problem with the traditional translation is that it seems to link the sentence forward, connecting it without interruption to what immediately follows.
According to such interpretations, Genesis 1:1 would then be a summary of the seven days of creation (and what follows an expansion), rather than what it actually is, a straight-forward statement of the fact of God's initial creation of the universe (against which the re-construction of the world is then set).(3) This view, however, is one which the language of Genesis 1:1 cannot be easily made to bear.
First of all, the opening sentence of the Bible (taken by itself, and examined without any preconceptions) purports to be just what we are suggesting here: an historical description of God's first action vis-à-vis the material universe, namely His original creation of it. On the other hand, problems for the alternative summary-statement theory arise as soon as we move on to verse two. For the earth is there described as being "without form, and void" (KJV).
But if verse one is not an actual description of the creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather merely a summary of the whole seven days that follow, then how are we to explain the fact that there is no re-statement of its initial creation in the detailed account? Where did this formless "earth" come from?
Are we to suppose that it did somehow exist before original creation? That would be quite a blow for all who genuinely believe in a God who transcends the universe and in His ex nihilo creation of it (see section II below). If, on the other hand, earth really was originally created "from nothing", it seems beyond odd not to mention that creation in the detailed account of the seven days (if indeed we are to assume that they represent original creation), and, on that account, strained to assume that the bald statement of its creation in verse one is a mere summary.
A second problem with taking Genesis 1:1 as a summary of what follows rather than an event in its own right is to be found in the grammatical connection between verses one and two. Following the description of God's ex nihilo creation of heaven and earth in verse one, we have, in the Hebrew, a disjunctive construction at the beginning of verse two. The combination of the connective waw and a nominal form (as opposed to a finite verb) indicates strong contrast in the Hebrew. That is to say, what we have beginning verse two is a "but", not an "and".(4) Grammatically speaking then, we are on much firmer ground in translating "but the earth . . .", rather than "and the earth . . ." (KJV). This rendering to which the actual language of the verse points so insistently (despite all speculation to the contrary) has produced mere head-scratching for those who hold to the summary interpretation.
But for those who are willing to follow where the Word of God actually leads, it is an unmistakable sign post, one which points inescapably to a definite gap between the Bible's two initial verses, a hiatus in the action which demands attention and invites investigation. Clearly, something dramatic must have transpired to account for this stark contrast between verses one and two. The Genesis Gap, therefore, is unmistakably present in the original Hebrew, representing a clear interruption in the narrative between God's original, perfect creation of the world, and His subsequent re-creation of a world ruined by Satan's revolt:.................
.
.
