The Gap and The Sumer Creation Myth

[RickReads]

You have no idea. I have no 'hang-up'. That's just a cheap shot on your part.

The very words of Genesis 1 and 2:4 PROVE the days are literal. But since you would rather ignore or outright reject what "evening and morning" refers to, what else is there to say?


So, what translation is this? Have you researched all the available English translations, or just cherry picked one that suits you?

2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. NIV.

And you have to ignore 1:14 with the specific mention of days and years.

You ignore the fact that a 24 hour day is generated by the sun which didn`t get made until the fourth day. That's a pretty big flaw in your 24-hour theory.

And I found your translation remark pretty amusing FYI.

 

[RickReads]

I understand how you might draw your inference of it being a time period from 2:4. But in actuality that verse should begin verse 1 of chapter 2. While I am extremely thankful for verses chapters and punctuation that were added prior to the 17th century they are not God breathed and should be regarded as such. The division of chapters between 1 & 2 is somewhat odd as most researchers agree that chapter 1 should end at verse 3 of chapter 2, and chapter two should start at verse 4.


Regardless … whenever the Bible uses the word day or evening alone it can indicate all or a portion of the day or of the evening.

But when the Bible uses the words day (morning) and evening (night) together, it always indicates a complete day of 24 hours, which is why the “traditional” time period of the death and resurrection of Jesus from Friday to Sunday am….. falls apart. (Wed before sunset… to Saturday before sunset is the appropriate time frame of Jesus being in the heart of the earth)….

Matt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I think the prophetic nature of the passage makes it a possible exception. Might be used as a metaphor.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You ignore the fact that a 24 hour day is generated by the sun which didn`t get made until the fourth day. That's a pretty big flaw in your 24-hour theory.

There is no flaw because there is no theory. That's only YOUR theory that there is a flaw and that I have a theory.

Let's review the whole picture, just for chuckles.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

So, ALL the 7 days are accounted for, and EVEN before we get to the 4th day, when God created the greater and lesser lights. And I hope you noticed that EVERY one of the 6 days we find "evening and there was morning".

So, please explain from YOUR theory what evening and morning can mean BEFORE there was a sun and moon.

And I found your translation remark pretty amusing FYI.

You mean about 1:2?

 

[RickReads]

There is no flaw because there is no theory. That's only YOUR theory that there is a flaw and that I have a theory.

Let's review the whole picture, just for chuckles.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

So, ALL the 7 days are accounted for, and EVEN before we get to the 4th day, when God created the greater and lesser lights. And I hope you noticed that EVERY one of the 6 days we find "evening and there was morning".



So, please explain from YOUR theory what evening and morning can mean BEFORE there was a sun and moon.


You mean about 1:2?

You have no interest in considering anything I believe about it so I see little reason to waste more of my time on this.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

On translations, I only read from and quote King James and you called me a translation cherry picker. That was kind of funny.

 

[RickReads]

How long are the days of Genesis 1? - Common-questions

 

[FreeGrace2]

You have no interest in considering anything I believe about it so I see little reason to waste more of my time on this.

How do you know what I am thinking? Rather, your quick excuse to leave the discussion suggests that you know you don't have a good defense for your own position. This is exactly what such people do.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

OK, how does this fit into the discussion?

On translations, I only read from and quote King James and you called me a translation cherry picker. That was kind of funny.

Your comment "I ONLY READ from and quote KJV" proves that you ARE a translation cherry picker. You've picked just ONE translation.

I love biblehub.com because it gives you 28 English translations, which allows you to see how various scholars translate the same verse. It's very interesting.

 

[FreeGrace2]

How long are the days of Genesis 1? - Common-questions

Well, it seems you can't answer the FACT that all of the 6 days in Gen 1 include the words "evening and morning", even before the "greater and lesser light" was created on the 4th day.

 

[DavidPT]

Someone on another thread raised the question if the Genesis 1 creation is literal, or just a general story or mythical description. Most often Genesis 1 is taught as being the literal creation of the universe, and of man. There is a deeper view of that though which some pastors and Hebrew scholars are familiar with. And it actually comes from study of Genesis 1 in the Hebrew, along with other related Bible Scriptures. Some call it the Gap Theory.

In short:
Genesis 1:1 = God's original perfect creation of the earth and universe. The time of the dinosaurs and fossil evidence of the whole earth being a literal paradise, even the poles being in a tropical state (as shown by the fossil evidence). This was a 1st world earth age.

Genesis 1:2 = the earth laying in a wasted and ruined state with flood waters covering it, from God's destroying that old world. Something happened in between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 to cause God to destroy that old world. Do you know when it was that Satan first coveted God's throne?

Genesis 1:3 forward = regeneration of the earth to the state of vanity it is in today. Apostle Paul described this vanity state of the creation in the Romans 8 chapter. God also described it in the Jeremiah 4:23-28 Scripture (which is an insert among warning to Judah through Jeremiah).

This points to an unknown Gap of time between the Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 verses.

I've asked pastors about this idea, whether they were aware of it, and to my surprise several of them said yes. One pastor looked me straight in the eye and told me that no man showed it to him, that only God showed it to him. I then asked if he taught it to his congregation and he said no, that only a few would understand. So that tells me there are more pastors out there aware of this, but they don't teach it simply because it is not popular, or is controversial. I feel that brethren need to at least know about it.


The Jeremiah 4:23-28 and Romans 8:18-25 connection:

In Jeremiah 4:23, the "without form, and void" statement from Genesis 1:2 is repeated. But there it is describing a ruined state of the earth from a destruction by God's anger. Some just pass that off as God warning rebellious Judah in Jeremiah's day of His destroying Jerusalem and Solomon's temple by the king of Babylon. But no, that Jeremiah 4:23-28 Scripture is covering a lot more than that...

Jer 4:22-28
22 For My people is foolish, they have not known Me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

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

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.

27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
KJV

There was no man? Certainly not the state of Judea after the king of Babylon's destruction, as some of the poor were left in the land, and a remnant of the house of Judah would return.

Did you notice the repeat of that, "without form, and void" phrase from Genesis 1:2? Now link that idea to verse 26 above, with the earth having become a wilderness, and all the cities being broken down at God's fierce anger, and you'll be close to what really did... happen upon this ancient earth which caused God to bring a flood of waters upon it at Genesis 1:2.

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the late Arnold Murray and Shepherd's Chapel? When I used to discuss and debate this alleged gap with Arnold Murray students, they too interpreted Jeremiah 4 exactly like you do. Either a coincidence or that you got that teaching from that source.


The first thing to note about Jeremiah 4:23-29, that is a prophecy. Prophecies predict future events, not past events.

Jeremiah 4:29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.



This doesn't say that the whole city fled, as in past tense. This says that the whole city shall flee, as in future tense.


Jeremiah 4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.


What people could this possibly be meaning if not any of the people mentioned per the following?

Jeremiah 3:20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.

How could there have already been a house of Israel before man was even created in the 6th day?

 

[RickReads]

How do you know what I am thinking? Rather, your quick excuse to leave the discussion suggests that you know you don't have a good defense for your own position. This is exactly what such people do.


OK, how does this fit into the discussion?


Your comment "I ONLY READ from and quote KJV" proves that you ARE a translation cherry picker. You've picked just ONE translation.

I love biblehub.com because it gives you 28 English translations, which allows you to see how various scholars translate the same verse. It's very interesting.

Predictable ad hominem. My view of the Genesis account is widely held and it isn`t hard to defend.

 

[RickReads]

Well, it seems you can't answer the FACT that all of the 6 days in Gen 1 include the words "evening and morning", even before the "greater and lesser light" was created on the 4th day.

Heaven doesn`t run on solar time and the word morning holds the same kind of meaning as the word beginning. Likewise, evening denotes a latter portion of something.

The words aren`t exclusive to a solar day.

 

[DavidPT]

Let's assume the creation days didn't involve literal 24 hour days.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Some will argue that this is not meaning during creation day 6, but is meaning after God rested on the 7th day, He then formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

But until God did this first---And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man---there was no such thing as human females yet. We can know that from this---And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This tells us Adam initially called female humans women.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If this was meaning an earlier creation, and that it is meaning humans, what were these females called since they too couldn't be called women if Adam didn't even call anyone a woman until God formed one first? As can be seen, we end up with a lot of nonsense if Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:21-23 are not meaning during creation day 6.

To further show this leads to nonsense, consider the following, while assuming Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 involve 2 different creation events, where one happens on the 6th day, the other happens after God rests on the 7th day.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


God is speaking to Noah right here. No one could possibly argue that Noah didn't come through Adam. Notice what this verse says---for in the image of God made he man. Where does it say anything like that in Genesis 2:7? It doesn't. It only says that in Genesis 1:27, here---So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.

Is one to believe, though God was speaking to Noah at the time, that nothing He said in Genesis 9:6 included him or any of his family, since they didn't come through someone that was created in God's image in the 6th day, they came through someone that was formed after God rested on the 7th day instead?

I said all of this to get to this main point, which is this.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

If Adam was created and formed in the 6th day, but that creation days don't involve 24 hour periods of time, how then is it being determined that Adam, from the time he was created and formed, until he begat Seth, he lived 130 years, and that he lived a total amount of 930 years altogether?

 

[Davy]

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the late Arnold Murray and Shepherd's Chapel? When I used to discuss and debate this alleged gap with Arnold Murray students, they too interpreted Jeremiah 4 exactly like you do. Either a coincidence or that you got that teaching from that source.

I first learned about it from study in E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible. He was a 19th century British Christian scholar of the Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic of course). He covered aspects of it from the Hebrew in Genesis 1. Others like the scholar Albert Barne's notes, as he saw it also. It's not a doctrine that Murray started, if that's what you're trying to say.

The first thing to note about Jeremiah 4:23-29, that is a prophecy. Prophecies predict future events, not past events.

Boy, are you wrong.

God's Word often uses past events to describe future prophetic events, or didn't you notice that the phrase, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" from Isaiah 21:9 is repeated word for word in Revelation 14:8 for the end of this world? Even in 2 Peter 3, Apostle Peter is using the previous destructions that God did on the surface of this earth when prophesying of the future consuming fire from God on the "day of the Lord".

So your point on Jeremiah 4:23-29 just failed miserably. God is using the example of His previous destruction on the earth to show the house of Judah what He is getting ready to do to Jerusalem/Judea by sending the king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) upon them, because of Judah's rebellion in falling away to pagan ways. Neb would take the city of Jerusalem and flatten it, along with the temple.

 

[RickReads]

Let's assume the creation days didn't involve literal 24 hour days.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Some will argue that this is not meaning during creation day 6, but is meaning after God rested on the 7th day, He then formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

But until God did this first---And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man---there was no such thing as human females yet. We can know that from this---And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This tells us Adam initially called female humans women.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If this was meaning an earlier creation, and that it is meaning humans, what were these females called since they too couldn't be called women if Adam didn't even call anyone a woman until God formed one first? As can be seen, we end up with a lot of nonsense if Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:21-23 are not meaning during creation day 6.

To further show this leads to nonsense, consider the following, while assuming Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 involve 2 different creation events, where one happens on the 6th day, the other happens after God rests on the 7th day.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


God is speaking to Noah right here. No one could possibly argue that Noah didn't come through Adam. Notice what this verse says---for in the image of God made he man. Where does it say anything like that in Genesis 2:7? It doesn't. It only says that in Genesis 1:27, here---So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.

Is one to believe, though God was speaking to Noah at the time, that nothing He said in Genesis 9:6 included him or any of his family, since they didn't come through someone that was created in God's image in the 6th day, they came through someone that was formed after God rested on the 7th day instead?

I said all of this to get to this main point, which is this.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

If Adam was created and formed in the 6th day, but that creation days don't involve 24 hour periods of time, how then is it being determined that Adam, from the time he was created and formed, until he begat Seth, he lived 130 years, and that he lived a total amount of 930 years altogether?

The creation sequence after Genesis 2:4 is different than the initial sequence up to that verse. You have to understand what that implies but the measurement of Adams life in solar years isn`t an issue.

His life span has nothing to do with the length of a creation day. Do you really think God`s clock is based on solar time? Seriously?

 

[FreeGrace2]

My view of the Genesis account is widely held and it isn`t hard to defend.

So you go by democracy then.

I go by what God's Word actually says. And you have YET to explain why the words "evening and morning" are included with ALL 6 days, in spite of the fact that the lesser and greater lights were created on the 4th day.

You can stick with your polls. I'll stay with God's Word.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Heaven doesn`t run on solar time and the word morning holds the same kind of meaning as the word beginning.

Go ahead and quote some actual scholarly source to back up your claim.

Likewise, evening denotes a latter portion of something.

Right. And that "something" would be a day.

The words aren`t exclusive to a solar day.

So what? You haven't proven anything. When the phrase "evening and morning" occur with a numbered DAY, they sure do refer to the numbered DAY.

 

[FreeGrace2]

. Do you really think God`s clock is based on solar time? Seriously?

God has no clock. He created time for humans. God exists out of time, in eternity, where there is no time. Being omnipresent means He is in the past, present and future all at once. A very hard concept to grasp.

 

[DavidPT]

The creation sequence after Genesis 2:4 is different than the initial sequence up to that verse. You have to understand what that implies but the measurement of Adams life in solar years isn`t an issue.

His life span has nothing to do with the length of a creation day. Do you really think God`s clock is based on solar time? Seriously?

Let's assume for a moment that the creation days are 1000 years in length each. If Adam was created and formed on day 6 of a thousand year day, what if he was created and formed at the beginning of that day, or in the middle of that day? That would mean he would have already lived a thousand years before God even rests on the 7th day, or that he already lived 500 years before God rested on the 7th day if he was created and formed in the middle of day 6.

How then can this have nothing to do with Adam's lifespan since this would have made him 1930 years old when he died if he was created and formed at the beginning of day 6, or he would have been 1430 years old when he died if he was created and formed in the middle of day 6, in this example?

If the creation days only involve 24 hour periods, it wouldn't matter what time of the day on day 6 Adam was created and formed. He would still be 930 years old when he died, which then agrees with Genesis 5 and not contradicts it instead.

 

[RickReads]

Let's assume for a moment that the creation days are 1000 years in length each. If Adam was created and formed on day 6 of a thousand year day, what if he was created and formed at the beginning of that day, or in the middle of that day? That would mean he would have already lived a thousand years before God even rests on the 7th day, or that he already lived 500 years before God rested on the 7th day if he was created and formed in the middle of day 6.

How then can this have nothing to do with Adam's lifespan since this would have made him 1930 years old when he died if he was created and formed at the beginning of day 6, or he would have been 1430 years old when he died if he was created and formed in the middle of day 6, in this example?

If the creation days only involve 24 hour periods, it wouldn't matter what time of the day on day 6 Adam was created and formed. He would still be 930 years old when he died, which then agrees with Genesis 5 and not contradicts it instead.

Well, I think Adam was made on the eighth day not the sixth. So for me, it's not an issue. Certainly, if Adam can be shown to be a sixth-day man then a problem arises.

In my opinion both Adam and the resurrection of Christ are 8th-day events. For this reason, I think Sunday to be the appropriate day of worship for the followers of Yeshua.

When you examine the sequence of events, Genesis 2:4 and afterward stand out as a different period of creation from early Genesis. Unfortunate this conversation hasn't been able to advance far enough to discuss that. That's kinda why I feel like dropping out of this one. I enjoy discussing it but its not worth a battle with the sand kickers.

 

[DavidPT]

Certainly, if Adam can be shown to be a sixth-day man then a problem arises.

What about some of the points I made in post #31, one of them being this?

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Per what you are proposing this would be meaning after the following.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


This verse says---male and female created he them. What were females called in Genesis 1:27? They couldn't be called women since they would not have been taken out of man like the one in Genesis 2 was, this assuming your position. If they were not women, what were they then? Since when is an adult female and a woman not one and the same?

 

[BeyondET]

I think the author is using a similar state of the beginning as a example about Jerusalem being destroyed (formless) and the land of Judah (void) of God’s people when they became captives and the city was in ruins as an end state.