The Earth and Voidness

[TheScottsMen]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

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

Alright, Key word in here is "Void".

Void = from an unused word (meaning empty), ruin,undistinguishable.

Now we know God doesn't create something in Ruin, or empty. So what are your views on why it was this way.

Example: Because of the 1/3 Angel Rebellion, etc..

Thanks!

 

[Andrew]

TheScottsMen,

I dont see a problem with the earth being initially "without form, and void;", in the sense that God created something bad.

Afterall, it did not stop there. I mean he separated the waters and land, and then put light and filled it with all sorts of living things.

Perhaps we can compare it to the creation of Adam. God formed Adam out of the dust. So if we stop there, we cld also say God made something bad -- a man "without form and void".

But it doesnt stop there becos God then breathed his life into Adam.

I have heard of the gap theory but dont agree with it for reasons cited here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

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

Alright, Key word in here is "Void".

Void = from an unused word (meaning empty), ruin,undistinguishable.

Now we know God doesn't create something in Ruin, or empty. So what are your views on why it was this way.

Example: Because of the 1/3 Angel Rebellion, etc..

Thanks!

The "pre-ademic race"/"flood of satan"/"gap theory" has been a "fun topic" of mine for many years. It is really not something worth debating about, but it has some interesting points. Some proponets are Clarence Larkin and Finis Dake. Mostly followed by dispensationalists, it seeks to explain how the earth went from a state of orignial perfection in verse 1 to the waste and void of verse 2.

Earth was not created this way(a void waste):
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

An possible expanded version of Gen 1:2
Jer 4:
23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills moved to and fro.
25 I looked, and behold, there was no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were pulled down Before the LORD, before His fierce anger.

 

[victoryword]

I happen to be an adherent to the "gap" theory because for me it explains a lot concerning the origin of evil in the universe, why Satan became such a bad devil and so on. Others who adhere to it besides Clarence Larkin and Finis Dakes was G. H. Pember who wrote the book, Earth's Earliest Ages. I think that this book was the first to popularize the idea of a gap between verses 1 and 2 though it had been taught long before this book. Donald Grey Barnhouse also believed in this and teaches it dogmatically in his book, The Invisible War. You will find many other evangelical and Charismatic adherents to this position.

I am familiar with Ham's beliefs on this issue and for me to adhere to embrace his thoughts on this subject would leave me with more questions than answers. Some months ago, I was asked by another pastor to respond to an article that was similar to the teaching that Ham promotes. First I will give you the link to the article and then I will give my response to it:

Article link:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=35

My response to the article
Hi ****

Read the second link. A very convincing argument against what they
call the "gap theory" (a theory that I believe in). I read most
of this article but not all of it. I say it's convincing if one
is unable to see through the obvious bias of the author. Reading
and studying the tactics of heresy hunters for so long automatically
alerts me to certain things that I would not have been alerted
to three years ago.

First, the author sneaks his own interpretation of historical
facts in the article. The author says about Clarence, "His willingness
to 'fall back then upon Science' allowed science to greatly infiltrate
his theology [Note his capitalization of the word Science]."
The author just "poisoned the well" by a subtle implication that
Larkin is placing Science on the level of deity.

Second, if it is true that some of these men espoused certain
ideas (like Scofield denying a literal 7 day creation and if
Dr. Larkin believed in "nebular hypothesis") then these ideas
would have to be rejected. However, there is no way of knowing
that these men truly embraced these things or what they
meant
by them without actually reading their material in context. The
other thing is that their incorrect suppositions does not invalidate
the "gap" teaching if it is indeed true. That's just like saying
that speaking in tongues is wrong because some people instruct
others on speaking in it by having the person copy the teacher
(which has been done and it is an argument that some use against
the teaching). So wrong suppositions about the doctrine does
not make the doctrine itself wrong.

Third, this person seems to be coming from one of those KJV Only
perspectives. He says, "Claiming that Genesis 1:2 was translated
incorrectly, gap theorists believe that it should read, 'And
the earth became without form, and void.' This attempt by gap
theorists to question God’s ability to preserve His Word (Psalms
12:6-7) in the English language is one of grievous error." While
I agree that the Bible is inerrant in its original languages
and I believe that the KJV is an excellent version, the author
obviously believes that the original translators were without
theological bias in their interpretation of this translation.
Studies have proven this to be incorrect. The word "was" in Genesis,
when seen in any Strong's concordance (#01961), can be found
to have more than one meaning. One of the meanings is "to become."
Gap theorists have every right to insist that the word "was"
may actually mean "became".

I can also see several blatant misrepresentations of "Gap theorists"
(as this man calls them) that I don't have time to get into.
Just browsing through the article and reading such things as
"The Bible clearly teaches that Satan was created, and that he
was not co-eternal with God" could cause one to believe that
Gap theorists teach that Satan was co-eternal with God. Again,
the author is poisoning the well. Not only that, the author has
built several strawmen to knock down (check out the four different
ways that the author claims that the Gap theory violates the
Scriptures. If this isn't strawman building then send me and
Dorothy back to Kansas - hahahahaha).

Basically, if I had time, I could rip this article apart (I think
I already did in the short time I have). The author could have
made his/her point without the rhetoric and bias inserted throughout.
Yet, if one is not looking for the things that I just pointed
out, one will easily be swayed by this article. It makes a good
case, but not good enough for THIS "Gap theorist."

Okay ****, you have fried my brain enough today. You have reached
your quota (just kidding).

I hope that this helps. By the way, some guy named Ken Ham has
a webpage that refutes the gap theory. He's pretty good, but
not good enough to sway me (not yet anyway). Let me forwarn you
though that Ham supports Hanegraaf's ministry.

I'll talk at ya' later.

Troy

 

[SavedByGrace3]

What some miss about Larkin is that most of his work was done almost 100 years ago! Including his pointing out the restoration of Israel almost 40 years before it happened. That gave him a lot of credibility in prophecy circles.

 

[Andrew]

So, does any one here believe in evolution? Is the Gap Theory suppose to allow for evolution to fit into Christianity?

 

[victoryword]

Andrew

As far as I understand the gap "theory" (I personally don't care too much for this word) it refutes evolution. Students of history should keep in mind that Thomas Chalmers, a leading Scottish theologian, taught the gap "theory" in 1814. Charles Darwin’s book, "Origin of the Species," was not published until 1859, 45 years later. Therefore some of the Christians opposed to the gap "theory" who claim that it was meant to impose evolution upon the Bible would have a difficult time making such an accusation stick.

An out of print book written by some guy named Arthur Custance supposedly traces the gap teaching back to Jewish tradition and church history. I cannot vouch for this since I do not have a copy of the book. However, if it's true then it would really blow the "gap theory mixes evolution with the Bible" argument out the window.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

So, does any one here believe in evolution? Is the Gap Theory suppose to allow for evolution to fit into Christianity?

Some points of evolution make sense. Natural selection for instance. Naturally a griaffe with a long neck will have a better chance of survival that a short necked one. What the evolutionist cannot explain is where they both (long and short) came from. They both had to be there to start with in order for one to be lost. The concept would be better named "natural rejection" than "natural selection." The entire concept should be considered "devolution" rather than "evolution"... because things are being lost not gained.
Overall I do not think the "gap-ites" had evoltuion in mind. I know Dakes is very against it.

 

[Theophilus7]

Hiya victoryword,

This is my first post on ChristianForums, so I thought I'd pick a reasonably controversial topic . Personally, I think the Gap Theory is a weak one, but I'm willing to hear anyone's arguments for it.

I happen to be an adherent to the "gap" theory because for me it explains a lot concerning the origin of evil in the universe, why Satan became such a bad devil and so on.

An interesting statement. Why do you feel the Gap Theory explains
1) the origin of evil
2) why Satan became a bad devil
any better than a 'gapless' creation story?

I am familiar with Ham's beliefs on this issue and for me to adhere to embrace his thoughts on this subject would leave me with more questions than answers.

Could you elaborate?

# # #

Now, a few thoughts in response to your rebuttal to the article below (which I haven't read)

It is true that the word "was" may sometimes be translated became, but you neglect the context. Hebrew grammarians (I am not one) point out that the Hebrew word hayetha (‘became’), in this instance, follows a ‘waw disjunctive’, which apparently introduces a parenthetic statement. It does not indicate something following in a time sequence. The existence of this conjunction has been identified in verse 2, and the first verse is understood as forming the principal subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three circumstantial clauses. We could translate it like this “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. As for the earth, it was formless and void…”

###

I hope that this helps. By the way, some guy named Ken Ham has
a webpage that refutes the gap theory. He's pretty good, but
not good enough to sway me (not yet anyway). Let me forwarn you
though that Ham supports Hanegraaf's ministry.

I know that Ham has some links to Hanegraaf's website (yuck). Is he very supportive of Mr. Hanegraaf?

God bless,

Theophilus7

 

[victoryword]

Ooooooh, someone wants to debate me! It's been a while since I have been in a good debate. Let me forwarn you that I fight dirty and I hit below the belt

Hiya victoryword,

This is my first post on ChristianForums, so I thought I'd pick a reasonably controversial topic . Personally, I think the Gap Theory is a weak one, but I'm willing to hear anyone's arguments for it.


An interesting statement. Why do you feel the Gap Theory explains
1) the origin of evil
2) why Satan became a bad devil
any better than a 'gapless' creation story?

For me it explains such passages as Isaiah 14 and Ezekial 28. Granted, I realize that many Bible teachers are now against the idea that those to passages refer to Satan before his "badness" but when I read them I cannot see how they could refer to human beings. But that's the subject of another debate. My main point is is that it is difficult for me to understand those two passages as referring to Satan's fall without seeing it having happened before the seven days God spent giving the earth form and substance.

Some who do agree with me that Isa. 14 and Ezekial 28 indeed refers to Satan's origin but disagree with me on the "Gap" teaching believe that Satan's fall came AFTER the creation of man. They believe that Lucifer became jealous of man and fell. In my "not as humble as I would like to pretend it to be" opinion, that has a whole lot less Scriptural backing than the Gap teaching.

Could you elaborate?

On the whole belief in the young earth theory or the disputing of the belief in the gap.

Now, a few thoughts in response to your rebuttal to the article below (which I haven't read)

It is true that the word "was" may sometimes be translated became, but you neglect the context. Hebrew grammarians (I am not one) point out that the Hebrew word hayetha (‘became’), in this instance, follows a ‘waw disjunctive’, which apparently introduces a parenthetic statement. It does not indicate something following in a time sequence. The existence of this conjunction has been identified in verse 2, and the first verse is understood as forming the principal subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three circumstantial clauses. We could translate it like this “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. As for the earth, it was formless and void…”

I am not a Hebrew grammarian either. Therefore you and I must both rely on others to help us in this. What we both usually do is we have already developed a basic premise in which we believe (I believe in the "gap" and you do not). Now we both find the Hebrew grammarian which will support the position we take. You will refer to the grammarian that support your position and I will prejudicially scour through all types of grammarians until I find one who supports my position. I will admit that the odds are more in your favor but digging deep enough I can find at least ONE (so far):

Gen 1:1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2: Now, the earth, had become waste and wild, and darkness, was on the face of the roaring deep,—but, the Spirit of God, was brooding on the face of the waters, (Rotherham)

I know that Ham has some links to Hanegraaf's website (yuck). Is he very supportive of Mr. Hanegraaf?

God bless,

Theophilus7

I know, disgusting, isn't it. Unfortunately many good men seem to support Hanegraaf's "ministry." I am not sure of the extent of his support for the Hankster though.

 

[Theophilus7]

Ooooooh, someone wants to debate me! It's been a while since I have been in a good debate. Let me forwarn you that I fight dirty and I hit below the belt

Bring it on!

For me it explains such passages as Isaiah 14 and Ezekial 28. Granted, I realize that many Bible teachers are now against the idea that those to passages refer to Satan before his "badness" but when I read them I cannot see how they could refer to human beings. But that's the subject of another debate.

I have no problems accepting that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan. I think it helps to remember that the O.T.'s demonology is less developed than the N.T.'s - there is the vague awareness of "principalities and powers" at work behind men (like in Daniel - "the prince of Persia"), but only "as through a veil". For example, we do not discover the identity of the serpent in the Garden of Eden until the N.T., when it becomes apparent that the creature was in some sense an embodiment of the devil.

The texts you mention do, in my opinion, refer to real men, but also the power behind them. It is hard to believe such ambition emanating from a mere man. It smacks of Satan through and through. (

My main point is is that it is difficult for me to understand those two passages as referring to Satan's fall without seeing it having happened before the seven days God spent giving the earth form and substance.

Interesting. I find it to be the exact oppositive. I do not see how your position can be reconciled with God's declaration in Genesis 1:31. ‘And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold it was very good.’ The original Hebrew is meod tov, which is even stronger, indicating perfection and the absence of evil [Calvin]. One commentary, discussing Gen. 1:31, observes that

‘everything was perfect in its kind … the existence of anything evil in the creation of God is absolutely denied, and the hypothesis entirely refuted, that the six days’ work merely subdued and fettered an ungodly, evil principle, which had already forced its way into it.’
​

I do not see how God could speak thus of His creation if Satan and his demons were at large in the cosmos, and just below the garden of Eden were millions of dead creatures fossilised, some with the marks of disease, some entombed in acts of violence (eg. eating another creature); all testimonies of death, disease and bloodshed staining God's "very good" creation. This "Paradise" would have been plonked on top of a graveyard. I find that hard to believe.

Some who do agree with me that Isa. 14 and Ezekial 28 indeed refers to Satan's origin but disagree with me on the "Gap" teaching believe that Satan's fall came AFTER the creation of man. They believe that Lucifer became jealous of man and fell. In my "not as humble as I would like to pretend it to be" opinion, that has a whole lot less Scriptural backing than the Gap teaching.

Why? I am ready to hear your reasons.

I am not a Hebrew grammarian either. Therefore you and I must both rely on others to help us in this. What we both usually do is we have already developed a basic premise in which we believe (I believe in the "gap" and you do not). Now we both find the Hebrew grammarian which will support the position we take. You will refer to the grammarian that support your position and I will prejudicially scour through all types of grammarians until I find one who supports my position. I will admit that the odds are more in your favor but digging deep enough I can find at least ONE (so far):

Gen 1:1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2: Now, the earth, had become waste and wild, and darkness, was on the face of the roaring deep,—but, the Spirit of God, was brooding on the face of the waters, (Rotherham)

Yes, I have come across Rotherham's bible before. However, since he is not alive today to defend his translation of Gen. 1:2 (and he is definitely in the minority), I think you must do better and produce a Grammarian who can offer a rationale for this rendition and answer the objections of those who find good linguistic reasons not to translation the Hebrew word "become" or "became", in this verse. Since the Hebrew word in question is almost always translated "was", except in a few instances where the context clearly indicates the need to translate it "became", the burden of proof is on the Gap Theorist to explain to us why Gen. 1:2 is an example of one of these exceptions. Methinks you are importing your theological prejudice into the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

All for now,

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

...As far as I understand the gap "theory" (I personally don't care too much for this word) it refutes evolution. Students of history should keep in mind that Thomas Chalmers, a leading Scottish theologian, taught the gap "theory" in 1814. Charles Darwin’s book, "Origin of the Species," was not published until 1859, 45 years later. Therefore some of the Christians opposed to the gap "theory" who claim that it was meant to impose evolution upon the Bible would have a difficult time making such an accusation stick.

I would agree with you on this one, victoryword. As far as I know, the Gap Theory was not an attempt to get evolution into the Bible, but to explain the Genesis cosmogony in the light of various data that suggest an age for the earth that greatly exceeds any the biblical chronologies could produce (however stretched). If I remember correctly (it’s been a while since I’ve really looked into it), the fossil record was one of the major issues. A Gap Theory seems to allow for a straightforward interpretation of the Genesis account (a literal six day (re)creation) without contesting current scientific opinion.



As I understand the Gap Theory, in its common manifestations, there are supposed to have been two global floods: “Lucifer’s flood” and the Noahic flood. The fossil record is attributed to a pre-Noahic global catastrophy (“Lucifer’s flood”), or the product of millions of years of gradualistic, pre-Adamic, geological processes.

Unfortunately, whatever position “Gapists” take on the fossil record, I have problems:



1. Animals in the fossil record have been found with sickness in their bones. The fossil record is replete with testimonies of disease, decay and death. Fossils have been found of animals apparently fighting each other, and in some cases eating each other.

• Attributing the fossil record to Noah's flood provides an explanation for all these observations within the sphere of scripture. Death, disease and bloodshed have spoiled God’s “very good” creation because of Adam’s sin.
• But the Gap Theory, by definition, is forced to attribute the fossil record to Lucifer's Flood (or an accumulation of sediments over millions of years before the 're-construction'), so the explanation for these observations is speculative as opposed to scriptural.

2. “Lucifer's flood” seems to make the Gap Theory a self-refuting argument. It removes the very reason for the theory:

• If all or most of the sediments and fossils were produced quickly under the catastrophic conditions of Lucifer's flood, then the main evidence that the earth is old {based on the assumption of the slow, gradual formation of sediments}, which prompted the creation of the popular Gap Theory in the first place, is redundant.
• If the world was reduced to a shapeless chaos, why is there a fossil record in the first place? Given such destruction, the fossil record must have been almost entirely obliterated. If it was left intact, how could God describe His finished work as ‘very good’, when a grim graveyard of buried bones sat underneath the beautiful Garden of Eden?
• On the other hand, if the fossil record was the product of millions of years, the flood of Lucifer would surely have obliterated it. Furthermore, those who advocate Lucifer's fall and thence the flood as an occurrence at the end of the geological ages have an additional problem: All the sickness, disease and death exhibited in the fossil record was God's fault, since neither Satan nor Adam can be blamed for it (and we know Satan has been "sinning from the beginning")

3. The Gap Theory is inconsistent when it claims the Flood of Lucifer created the fossil record, but the Noahic flood left virtually no trace:

• Both floods were global.
• If the fossil record was formed by Lucifer's flood, Noah's flood would surely have destroyed it, severely disrupted it, or replaced it.
• To be consistent, the Gap Theorist needs to argue, as some "gappists" have done, that Noah's flood was a local event, and hence the superficial appearance of biblical disintegrates (see Genesis 7:19-23)

4. The Gap Theory undermines the evidence of God's divine judgement

• The flood of Noah is a judgement the Bible echoes time and time again as a parallel of the judgement of fire to come. It would be strange if God left no warning or evidence of it.
• Having relegated the fossil record to a theoretical gap between Genesis 1:1-2, the evidence for Noah's flood, which is the evidence of God's divine judgement on the antediluvian world, is obliterated.

However you fiddle the Gap Theory, I don’t think you can make either good geology or good theology out of it.

Bye for now,

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

Earth was not created this way(a void waste):
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

I think the NIV does a better job with this verse.

"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"​

(Isaiah 45:18 NIV)

If you examine the context, this makes sense. God is unwilling to unleash a destructive judgement upon His people. He made man and the animals, the birds and the fish, and all manner of creatures with the intention for the world "to be inhabited", not so He could liquidate them! Through Isaiah, God is imploring the people to "turn to Me and be saved" (see v22), because He is their creator. He did not create the earth without life, but His very purpose in creating it was to inhabit it with people who would love Him and serve Him - a people He wants to bless with good things, not judge with death and destruction.

An possible expanded version of Gen 1:2
Jer 4:
23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills moved to and fro.
25 I looked, and behold, there was no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were pulled down Before the LORD, before His fierce anger.

Again, I think the context is against you, my friend.



Let's back off a few verses: Jeremiah is lamenting over Judah's devastation, exhorting Judah to repentance, and warning of the consequences of God's terrible judgement. He cried out:

7 "A lion has gone up from his thicket, And a destroyer of nations has set out; He has gone out from his place To make your land a waste. Your cities will be ruins Without inhabitant.

8 "For this, put on sackcloth, Lament and wail; For the fierce anger of the Lord Has not turned back from us."
. . .
20 Disaster on disaster is proclaimed, For the whole land is devastated; Suddenly my tents are devastated, My curtains in an instant.
​

(Jeremiah 4:7,8,20 NASB)

Jeremiah describes a terrifying vision - but we are not given any reason to suppose that this vision was something that has already happened or that Jeremiah is describing the alleged gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Rather, the context of Jeremiah 4 is a prophecy predicing the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem. The "tohu va bohu" is very possibly a literary allusion to the Gen. 1:2 - this judgement will be so serious that the land will become just as empty as it was when God began His creative stint.


God bless,

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

Overall I do not think the "gap-ites" had evoltuion in mind. I know Dakes is very against it.

You are probably right. The Gap Theory tries to explain the origin of a bunch of dead things (the fossils), not living. The Gappists I have read believe that the present species, including man, were created during the six day creation described in Genesis 1, not over millions of years, but that the fossils and dinosaur bones date back to a pre-Adamic age.

 

[Theophilus7]

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

Alright, Key word in here is "Void".

Void = from an unused word (meaning empty), ruin,undistinguishable.

Now we know God doesn't create something in Ruin, or empty. So what are your views on why it was this way.

I would have to agree with Andrew on this. If God was creating the heavens and the earth 1) in time, and 2) in any kind of sequential order then the earth must have been empty at some point. There had to be an earth to put the animals, plants and people on, so God begins with the earth - rather like a Potter starting with a lump of clay. It's "formless and empty" at first, but after He's been working with it for a while, it begins to take shape, and soon its ready to house the lifeforms He wishes to create upon it.

Void = from an unused word (meaning empty), ruin,undistinguishable.

I take issue with your definition there. Neither the Hebrew word "tohu" nor the Hebrew word "bohu" must be translated "ruin" or "devastation". All in all, there are 20 instances where the Hebrew word "tohu" appears in the Old Testament. Some examples:

"You must not turn aside, for then you would go after futile things which can not profit or deliver, because they are futile [tohu]."​

(I Samuel 12:21 NASB)

"Behold, all of them are false; Their works are worthless, Their molten images are wind and emptiness [tohu]."​

(Isaiah 41:29 NASB)

"Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile [tohu], and their precious things are of no profit; even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so that they will be put to shame."​

(Isaiah 44:9 NASB)

Simply by considering these scriptures, it should be clear that the primary meaning of this word is emptiness, and this theme prevails in the other verses where it makes its appearance. Something which is 'tohu' is empty - it lacks substance or reality. God calls the idols 'tohu' because they are false, empty and lifeless. On its own, this word does not have destructive connotations. In other places, in the King James, it is translated "nothing" and "nought". In Job 26:7, the NASB translates the word 'tohu' as the "empty space".

Thus Genesis 1:2 uses the word 'tohu' to convey the emptiness or lifelessness of the world at this stage in creation. It is not populated - it is empty - not because it is in chaotic ruin, but because it is simply devoid of life and colour. God has only just begun...

The lexicon definition of 'bohu', the other word which appears in this verse, is "emptiness, void, waste". There are only three instances where this word is employed: First in Genesis 1:2, then in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23. In these three instances, it appears with the Hebrew word 'tohu'.

Apart:

"But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, and owl and raven will dwell in it; And He will stretch over it the line of desolation [tohu] and the plumb line of emptiness [bohu]."​

(Isaiah 34:11 NASB)


Together:

"I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void [tohu va' bohu]; And to the heavens, and they had no light."​

(Jeremiah 4:23 NASB)


If either "tohu" or "bohu" are to be interpreted with a destructive connotation, it must be purely through the specific context in which they appear. Clearly, the primary meaning of both words is "emptiness", "nothingness", "void". They form a complementary rhyming couplet in Jer. 4:23 and Gen 1:2 for emphasis.

Granted, in Jeremiah the expression speaks of formlessness and emptiness resulting from divine judgement, but we are not left merely with the phrase 'tohu va bohu' in either case, but it is made clear from the context that this is a direct result of God's judgement on man's sin. The suggestion of destruction is by no means implicit in the expression itself, but is understood from the particular context.

Something similar to the following analogy has been used before to explain the difference between Jer. 4's "tohu va bohu" and Gen 1:2's: I hold a brand new computer disc in one hand, and a used disc in the other. Both discs, in this situation, are "blank". In the first instance, the disc is blank because nothing, as of yet, has been created on the disc. In the second, the disc is blank because the data has been deleted. So the phrase "totally empty" is applicable in either case, but it does not tell us the reason why the disc in question is blank. This analogy is applicable in the case of Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23. Very possibly the rhyming phrase is used in Jeremiah 4:23 as a literary allusion to Genesis 1:2.

God bless,

Theophilus7

 

[victoryword]

Theophilus7, I will not be able to answer all of your posts in one shot. It's not that I cannot but these debates take up more time than I actually have. However, I will tackle this one today and deal with the rest of your objections later.

I have no problems accepting that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan. I think it helps to remember that the O.T.'s demonology is less developed than the N.T.'s - there is the vague awareness of "principalities and powers" at work behind men (like in Daniel - "the prince of Persia"), but only "as through a veil". For example, we do not discover the identity of the serpent in the Garden of Eden until the N.T., when it becomes apparent that the creature was in some sense an embodiment of the devil.

The texts you mention do, in my opinion, refer to real men, but also the power behind them. It is hard to believe such ambition emanating from a mere man. It smacks of Satan through and through.

We are agreed 100% here though I would like to add a precaution for those who might embrace SLSW. These passages should not be used as justification for taking authority over and casting down ruling principalities over cities since Ezekial and Isaiah are never told to do any such thing.

Interesting. I find it to be the exact oppositive. I do not see how your position can be reconciled with God's declaration in Genesis 1:31. ‘And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold it was very good.’ The original Hebrew is meod tov, which is even stronger, indicating perfection and the absence of evil [Calvin]. One commentary, discussing Gen. 1:31, observes that

‘everything was perfect in its kind … the existence of anything evil in the creation of God is absolutely denied, and the hypothesis entirely refuted, that the six days’ work merely subdued and fettered an ungodly, evil principle, which had already forced its way into it.’


​

I do not see how God could speak thus of His creation if Satan and his demons were at large in the cosmos, and just below the garden of Eden were millions of dead creatures fossilised, some with the marks of disease, some entombed in acts of violence (eg. eating another creature); all testimonies of death, disease and bloodshed staining God's "very good" creation. This "Paradise" would have been plonked on top of a graveyard. I find that hard to believe.

I appreciate commentators and commentaries and I enjoy reading them. However, I believe that you would agree with me that commentators are not always correct in their comments on Scripture and can sometimes even present a biased interpretation of Scripture based on theological leanings (Example, while Calvin has some good commentaries, he and his followers after him can easily read extreme views of sovereignty, predestination, and election in almost every Scripture passage).

Having said that, I read Gen. 1:31 and it says to me that the acts that God did during the six days is that which He affirms as good. I do not see any justification in making Gen. 1:31 teach that Satan and his angels had not fallen before the six days in which God did His work, especially since this passage centers on the creative process on the six days and nothing that may or may not have happened prior to that.

Furthermore, how would these commentators justify the teaching that God had planted a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden? Are we to say that this tree was created after the six days mentioned in Gen. 1?

Why? I am ready to hear your reasons.

The belief that Satan fell sometime after Adam was created is based on more THEORY than the claim that the gap between Genesis 1 verses 1 and 2 is. There is nothing in Scripture that could even remotely make a case for such a thing. on the contrary, Scripture would seem to contradict it, that is if one truly claims to believe in a literal six days work of God. Satan would not have time to be the vice-regent over the earth as he is portrayed in Isa. 14 and Ezekial 28 and be so quickly replaced by man and provoked to jealousy as to cause his fall as seen in Gen. 1:26-28. Those who deny the belief that Isa. and Ezek. refers to Satan are more consistent in their beliefs than those who want to affirm this but deny the gap teaching. I ought to refer to this as the "Anti-Gap fall of Satan THEORY" because one is hard pressed to find Scripture for it.

Yes, I have come across Rotherham's bible before. However, since he is not alive today to defend his translation of Gen. 1:2 (and he is definitely in the minority), I think you must do better and produce a Grammarian who can offer a rationale for this rendition and answer the objections of those who find good linguistic reasons not to translation the Hebrew word "become" or "became", in this verse. Since the Hebrew word in question is almost always translated "was", except in a few instances where the context clearly indicates the need to translate it "became", the burden of proof is on the Gap Theorist to explain to us why Gen. 1:2 is an example of one of these exceptions. Methinks you are importing your theological prejudice into the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

All for now,

Theophilus7

Since I do not have access to a lot of material right now that might help me make a better case for choosing disputing that "was" can also be "become" or "became" I will not attempt to make to strong of an argument for it right now. However, I will point out that the Hebrew word Hayah according to the KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon shows that there are various meanings for this word. One of the many definitions is : to become; to become like; to be instituted, be established; to be so a bias translator of Scripture could easily use which definition of the word they want and not do any serious injustice to Gen. 1:2. That might not sit well with theone whose theology opposes the bias use but they would have a difficult time making a convincing case against it (as I believe that you are).

Furthermore, the way that many translations translate "tohu" and "bohu" in Gen. 1:2 causes me to believe that many people do not see this earth as just a shapeless mass that God started with in which He was later to fashion into some likeness that He desired. Here are a few:

the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God F2 was moving over the water. (TEV)

And the earth was waste and without form ... (Darby and some others say it this way)

the earth hath existed waste and void, (Young's)

But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished (Apostle's Bible)

The earth was without form and an empty waste ... (Amplified)

The earth was barren, with no form of life; [1] it was under a roaring ocean covered with darkness. (CEV)

Many commentators see the words "tohu" and "bohu" as CHAOTIC and full of CONFUSION. One commentator who saw it this way dies long before Chalmers wrote about his beliefs on this subject. His name is John Wesley:

This chaos, was without form and void. Tohu and Bohu, confusion and emptiness, so those words are rendered, Isa 34:11. 'Twas shapeless, 'twas useless, 'twas without inhabitants, without ornaments; the shadow or rough draught of things to come. To those who have their hearts in heaven, this lower world, in comparison of the upper, still appears to be confusion and emptiness. And darkness was upon the face of the deep - God did not create this darkness, (as he is said to create the darkness of affliction, Isa 45:7.) for it was only the want of light. (Wesley's Notes)

Now I am not saying that Wesley would have supported the Gap doctrine but I am saying that he saw "Tohu" and "Bohu" and the darkness as something more than what anti-gap believers make it out to be. If the earth was in such a catastrophic state in verse 2 then there was something more to this than the belief that God created the earth but started his creation creating it with emptiness and confusion as the words imply.

This is why I m still for the Gap teaching. This post has taken me a long time to write. I will have to address your other posts at some other time.