GAP…theory…or…fact?

[Eugene]

A believer can believe that the earth is significantly older than Adam without being an evolutionist. Support for an old earth does not equal support for evolution.

I agree.

 

[FreeGrace]

So could we say from Eph. 1:4, God chose to have a people for Himself before He conceived the idea of the earth as we know it.
G2602 = foundation
καταβολή
katabolē
kat-ab-ol-ay'
From G2598; a deposition, that is, founding; figuratively conception: - conceive, foundation.

I think we can only say that He formed it to be inhabited when He finished the 4th day.
H3335 = formed
probably identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); (compare H3331); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively to determine (that is, form a resolution)

Do we know when He formed or moulded it? I don't. I imagine it looked something like Mars or the moon except covered with water. Rather like a ball of clay before all the decorating started.

All of this is kinda off track. My hope is that if I've posted anything that is in error and can be shown to be would be noted.

My question would be 'In the beginning God created' the beginning of what?

Good question. From a pastor who had 5 years of Hebrew in seminary, he said the word indicates "a beginning that is not a beginning". I know that sounds kinda funny, but the point is that the word doesn't indicate an absolute beginning.

I would understand it in the sense of when God created the "heavens and earth". We know that God did not have a beginning, being eternal.

 

[FreeGrace]

Where is the Scripture that says the earth was anything different before before we see it in Gen 1:1-2.

The earth was different by the use of "became" in v.2, and what Isa 45:18 said about the earth.

Do any other scriptures refer to the earth as a whole using Tohu and Wabohu, instead of a local area?

I gave all the verses where these words are found. And in every case, the meaning is "desolation, a waste place".

How do you interpret "became"? as it says "and the earth being without form and empty" or "and the earth was without form and void."

I don't think "became" has more than 1 meaning. In order for something to "become" something else, it had to change.

Isa 45:18 does not insinuate that anything changed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

? Isaiah said the earth was not created a waste place, yet Gen 1:2 says the earth became a waste place. Very clear to me.

Where is any direct reference to what you are stating?

Please be more specific as I do not know to what you are referring to here.

What I'm stating is what Scripture says. And I'm doing that by showing that "was" in v.2 was translated as "became" in ALL the other 4 times that form of the word occurs in the OT. As well, I'm showing that "without form and void" was a very poor translation, as shown by all the verses where that occurs.

And we haven't even gotten to the NT verses that support a time gap.

 

[FreeGrace]

There is no gap theory if we just keep it simple. We got our language from God, he wrote like we would normally think.

With all respect, I wish posters would have read all the posts before applying their opinion. I have already noted that there is no "theory". I am in the process of demonstrating that the Bible is clear that there was a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2. It is what may have happened during that time gap that can be called "theory".

I'll tell you from the start what happened. Sue left the leash on the dog and meat on the counter. The phone rang, so she forgot to grab the meat and put it away. The dog saw the meat and jumped up on the table to get it. Fluffy the cat was asleep by the table, and the leash happened to wrap around fluffy as the dog jumped up. Up in the air went fluffy...bla bla bla bla bla....and that is what happened to your cat. Honest, from the beggining.

This is all very funny and all, but totally off the subject.

If there is anything I've posted that is in error, please provide evidence for that. So far, all I've done is to explain several Hebrew words and how they were used in all the other passages in the OT, and how that relates to Gen 1.

 

[FreeGrace]

Wow, Reba and Debra Sort of agree. have to write this major event down.

I ran with the pack for years on this, but I kept seeking and the Lord just asked me to read it like I would anything else. Took awhile, but He helped me. Watch.

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

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
(Gen 1:10)

There was no such thing called Earth by God until verse 10.

So we can scratch the word "earth" from v.1 then???? Give me a break.

So, God tells us what he did, (Make the Heavens and the Earth) then tells us the process of how He did it. It's far to simple, and why we get confused. I am just as guilty.

No, He didn't "make" (barah) the heavens and earth. He created (asah) them. Big difference.

If you read any of the earlier posts, you would have known that one poster referenced the fact that Jews have argued for a time gap. How interesting. Who better than the Hebrew people to understand the Hebrew language? Hm.

 

[FreeGrace]

Sorry I entered this thread late, but if you would hold on just a minute. You have yet to show that "hayah" is translated as 'became.' You did say you were going to show that, but you have not yet.

Yes, I did. I gave ALL the verses where the exact same form of the word as found in Gen 1:2 was used and in ALL of them, it was translated as "became". Actually, Gen 47:26 was translated "did not become", but same concept, just in the negative.

I laid it all out. Start with the OP and scroll.

 

[FreeGrace]

Gen 3:20 has the 'being' verb translated as "was", as in "she was the mother of all the living" (KJV). It appears to have [where are my bi-focals] the same vowel pointing as the 'being' verb in Gen 1:2, "and the earth was without form".

In my research, I looked up every translation of "became/become" in a lexicon, where the word was spelled in English. The same spelling as found in v.2 occurs in 4 other verses. I examined some 57 verses in all. Gen 3:20 isn't relevant to this discussion, because the form of the word is different than in 1:2.

 

[FreeGrace]

The Bible states clearly that the earth was created in 6 days.

Actually, not. The heavens and earth were created out of nothing (ex nihilio) immediately; Gen 1:1. What followed was a restoration of planet earth, plus creation of all that God put on the planet, including man. And that did take exactly 6 days.

The length of each of those six days was one 24-hour period, indicated by each day having an evening and a morning; each day being call "good" or "very good".

Yep.

(Exo 20:11 KJV) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

The key here is found in the word "made". In the Hebrew, that is "asah", and means to make something out of something. Whereas "created" is "barah", meaning to create something out of nothing.

Remember, God spoke the earth into existence. Immediately.

 

[FreeGrace]

It was never translated became one time it was used in the KJV. Not even become. It means existed, to come about, be in existence. No bible I know translated it became in verse 2. Its used properly. God told us that he made the earth, then told us how. The earth was called earth after God separated dry from wet in verse 10. The earth took 6litteral days to make.

Please examine ALL the 4 other uses of the exact same form as found in 1:2. They were ALL translated "became".

 

[FreeGrace]

The following is a quote by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. in his article, Popular Compromises of Creation—The Gap Theory, point #3 found here:
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=575 :

POINT # 3
"The Gap Theory is false because, in the context of Genesis 1:2, there is no justification for translating the verb “was” (hayetha) as “became.”
Gap theorists insist that the Earth became “waste and void” after Satan’s rebellion. Yet usage of the verb hayah argues against the translation, “The earth became waste and void” (Genesis 1:2). Ramm has noted:

The effort to make was mean became is just as abortive. The Hebrews did not have a word for became but the verb to be did service for to be and become. The form of the verb was in Genesis 1:2 is the Qal, perfect, third person singular, feminine. A Hebrew concordance will give all the occurrences of that form of the verb. A check in the concordance with reference to the usage of this form of the verb in Genesis reveals that in almost every case the meaning of the verb is simply was. Granted in a case or two was means became but if in the preponderance of instances the word is translated was, any effort to make one instance mean became, especially if that instance is highly debatable, is very insecure exegesis (1954, p. 139, emp. in orig.).
The verb hayetha of Genesis 1:2 is translated “was” in all the standard translations because that is its meaning. Surely it is significant that none of the Old Testament linguists felt compelled to translate hayetha to suggest that the Earth became waste and void, as gap theorists propose."

Nice try, but I have already refuted his claim. The particular form of the word "hayah" as found in 1:2 occurs 4 more times in the OT. And in ALL of them, the word was translated as "became".

I did my homework. Unfortunately, Bert didn't do his.

How does Bert explain the Jews also argue for a time gap between v.1 and 2?

 

[FreeGrace]

The following is a quote by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. in his article, Popular Compromises of Creation—The Gap Theory, point #6 found here:
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=575 :

Point # 6
"We reject the Gap Theory because its proof-text (Isaiah 45:18) is premised on a removal of the verse from its proper context.
Isaiah 45:18 reads:

For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain [the phrase “in vain” istohu, the same as “without form” in Genesis 1:2—BT], He formed it to be inhabited.
Gap theorists suggest since Isaiah stated that God did not create the Earth tohu, and since the Earth of Genesis 1:2 was tohu, therefore the latter could not have been the Earth as it was created in Genesis 1:1. The implication is that the Earth became tohu as a result of the cataclysm precipitated by Satan’s rebellion.

The immediate context, however, has to do with Israel and God’s promises to His people. Isaiah reminded his listeners that just as God had a purpose in creating the Earth, so He had a purpose for Israel. Isaiah spoke of God’s immense power and special purpose in creation, noting that God created the Earth “to be inhabited”—something accomplished when the Lord created people in His image. In Isaiah 45, the prophet’s message is that God, through His power, likewise will accomplish His purpose for His chosen people, Israel. Morris has remarked:

There is no conflict between Isaiah 45:18 and the statement of an initial formless aspect to the created earth in Genesis 1:2. The former can properly be understood as follows: “God created it not (to be forever) without form; He formed it to be inhabited.” As described in Genesis 1, He proceeded to bring beauty and structure to the formless elements and then inhabitants to the waiting lands. It should be remembered that Isaiah 45:18 was written many hundreds of years after Genesis 1:2 and that its context deals with Israel, not a pre-Adamic cataclysm (1974, p. 241)."​

Refuted already. Read Isa 45:18 in the NASB. I didn't make any of this up.

 

[Gregg]

In my research, I looked up every translation of "became/become" in a lexicon, where the word was spelled in English. The same spelling as found in v.2 occurs in 4 other verses. I examined some 57 verses in all. Gen 3:20 isn't relevant to this discussion, because the form of the word is different than in 1:2.

Hayah occurs about 110 times in the OT. The Masoretes added the vowel pointing well after the NT books were written; probably no earlier that 500 AD; and so one may not assume that the vowel pointing was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when you see "hayah" written in other forms [such as he-yod-tav-he [Gen 1:2, Isa 45:18] you can not rely on vowel pointing to assume that "was" actually means 'became.'

At a minimum, your theory stands on shaky ground. It is pure conjecture and stands unproven.

 

[Gregg]

The earth was different by the use of "became" in v.2, and what Isa 45:18 said about the earth.

I gave all the verses where these words are found. And in every case, the meaning is "desolation, a waste place".

I don't think "became" has more than 1 meaning. In order for something to "become" something else, it had to change.

? Isaiah said the earth was not created a waste place, yet Gen 1:2 says the earth became a waste place. Very clear to me.

What I'm stating is what Scripture says. And I'm doing that by showing that "was" in v.2 was translated as "became" in ALL the other 4 times that form of the word occurs in the OT. As well, I'm showing that "without form and void" was a very poor translation, as shown by all the verses where that occurs.

All of the above is conjecture based upon unfounded theory and a mis-interpretation of Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18.

And we haven't even gotten to the NT verses that support a time gap.

No need to get to the NT from where you started.

 

[Gregg]

With all respect, I wish posters would have read all the posts before applying their opinion. I have already noted that there is no "theory". I am in the process of demonstrating that the Bible is clear that there was a time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2. It is what may have happened during that time gap that can be called "theory".

What you are saying is that you wish your posts were read . . . and agreed with. What you are attempting to demonstrate can not stand on what you have written so far.

Your interpretation of 'became' is an incorrect interpretation based on what you wish to prove in the NT.

If there is anything I've posted that is in error, please provide evidence for that. So far, all I've done is to explain several Hebrew words and how they were used in all the other passages in the OT, and how that relates to Gen 1.

So far you have explained several Hebrew words, but incorrectly.

 

[Gregg]

Yes, I did. I gave ALL the verses where the exact same form of the word as found in Gen 1:2 was used and in ALL of them, it was translated as "became". Actually, Gen 47:26 was translated "did not become", but same concept, just in the negative.

I laid it all out. Start with the OP and scroll.

I've read all your posts here, but I don't buy it.

The verb "hayah" used in the context of Gen 47:26 has nothing to do with creation of heaven and earth, and so is not suitable to define "hayah" in Gen 1:2; neither do three of the other verses from which you conjecture [Ex 9:24, 1 Sam 10:12 and Joshua 14:14].

 

[Gregg]

From a pastor who had 5 years of Hebrew in seminary, he said the word indicates "a beginning that is not a beginning". I know that sounds kinda funny, but the point is that the word doesn't indicate an absolute beginning.

Please do not listen to a pastor that says, "the word indicates 'a beginning that is not a beginning' ".

You have redefined "was" so that it means 'became'; and now you redefine 'beginning' so that it is not really a beginning, not 'an absolute beginning.'

You said it . . . 'I know that sounds kinda funny.'

There is no need to continue any further, as you are building upon conjecture and a misinformed pastor.

 

[Gregg]

In my research, I looked up every translation of "became/become" in a lexicon, where the word was spelled in English. The same spelling as found in v.2 occurs in 4 other verses. I examined some 57 verses in all. Gen 3:20 isn't relevant to this discussion, because the form of the word is different than in 1:2.

Three of the five verses you site to mistranslate Gen 1:2 are also not relevant to this discussion.

 

[Deborah13]

My only point here is that the exact form of the word in Gen 1:2 is translated as "became" in ALL the other 4 occurrences in the OT.


Isa 45:18 says that the earth was not created a waste place, and Gen 1:2 says it became a waste place. That's my point.

What search did you use to find all the occurrences of hey-yud-tav-hey in the OT. Was this a program? Please share this information, a link, book, etc.
Thanks

I'm confused now. Are you searching the English word 'become or became' rather than searching the Hebrew for the the word hey-yud-tav-hey? And then seeing how that word in Hebrew has been translated in English?

 

[Gregg]

Actually, not. The heavens and earth were created out of nothing (ex nihilio) immediately; Gen 1:1.

Yes.

What followed was a restoration of planet earth, plus creation of all that God put on the planet, including man. And that did take exactly 6 days.

You are dreaming up 'a restoration.' Time, space, and the laws of physics did not exist prior to day one of creation. On day one of creation there were 12 hours of contiguous darkness followed by 12 hours of continuous Light, an evening and a morning - one day totaling 24 hours.

 

[Gregg]

Nice try, but I have already refuted his claim. The particular form of the word "hayah" as found in 1:2 occurs 4 more times in the OT. And in ALL of them, the word was translated as "became".

I did my homework. Unfortunately, Bert didn't do his.

How does Bert explain the Jews also argue for a time gap between v.1 and 2?

You have not refuted it, even though you continue to say you have, but you have yet to pose a credible argument.

FreeGrace, you may have done some homework, but you are not alone in it. Neighbor, we are all doing our homework here.

In your future conjectures it would serve you well to assume these things: We all study the Scriptures here. We all do our homework here. No one here has an intellectual or spiritual stool elevated above another.