 |
The Gap TheoryThe ruin-reconstruction theory which allows for a gap between Genesis verses 1 and 2
|
|
|
|
The Gap Theory, also known as the ruin-reconstruction theory, allows for a gap between Genesis verses 1 and 2 of the Creation process, in an effort to harmonize science with the Bible. It is basically an attempt to solve the geological evidence that science presents by making a place for the catastrophe and chaos developments that are seemingly witnessed in the earth's fossiliferous strata. The theory has been advocated for centuries. The modern form originated with Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University in response to George Culver's scientific presentation of the evidence for these catastrophic changes. The wide circulation of the Gap Theory by George H. Pember in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, and by C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Reference Bible helped spread the ideas. Arthur C. Custance's Without Form and Void, was the most scholarly and lengthy defense of the gap theory, which was published in 1970. The modern Gap Theory taught today speaks of a perfect heaven and earth created by the LORD God in a dateless past. It theorizes that the earth was inhabited by a pre-Adamic race ruled by Satan, who dwelt in the Garden of Eden. Satan vainly desired to become like God and rebelled, causing sin to enter mankind, and bring the Judgment of God against them. According to the modern day gap theory, the great flood, and then the light and heat from the sun ended, a global ice age resulted, all coming from the Judgment of God against a sinning mankind. The foundation of their argument rests upon the belief that all plant, animal, and human fossils date from the great flood and are genetically unrelated to plants, animals, and humans on the earth today. The Gap Theory argument is supported by the Hebrew words that are interpreted to mean that chaos existed and had no form, and that it was the LORD God who brought form to the Earth. The argument gently manipulates the meanings of words to support the intentions, but, the argument takes away from the act of absolute Creation by the LORD God, and borders upon blasphemy in its presentation. Specifically, the Gap Theory makes five points to support their position. 1. "The earth was [hayeta] without form" should be translated "the earth became without form" or "had become without form." This manipulation of the Hebrew word hayeta takes the direct result of divine Creation out of the LORD God's Hands, and places creation into a big bang chaos originating from natural source that was eventually tamed by God in his forming of the earth. 2. "Without form [tohu, waste] and void [wabohu] represents an evil condition and is the result of divine judgment rather than creation. This view is blasphemy and attempts to remove the power of our LORD God over His Creation. 3. The two primary Hebrew verbs meaning "create" must be carefully distinguished. The gap theororists suggest that "bara" and "asa" have two separate meanings, but Hebrew usage does not support this. 4. Because "Darkness was upon the face of the deep" and because "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5,) verse 2 cannot be describing the original state of creation. Darkness is a symbol for evil, thus God could not have been in the beginning. 5. God told Adam to replenish the earth (Gen 1:28), so the earth must have been filled during an earlier period (Davis, 44) Evidence against the Gap Theory First and foremost, the LORD God created the Heavens and the Earth and all things within. The Word of God says so directly, and manipulation of the Hebrew words is not prudent or necessary in declaring that number one evidence. There is no evidence in modern geology that supports the theory's two global catastrophes with two distinct geologic periods. It is ironic that the gap theory was created to harmonize the Bible with geological theory, yet, cannot hold up to the science it is courting. The manipulated Hebrew word "hayeta" means "had become", and the words "tohu" and "bohu" for waste and void, must not be argued by itself based upon common usage. Rather, the word usage should be approached with careful exegesis and with an eye to the conforming of the use of those words with other Scripture in the Word of God. If care is not taken, the wrong path journey will lead away from the Creator and toward the false teachings of a self-serving science of reason without spirit or proof. The Hebrew word "hayeta" means more than had become, and in fact can be a simple copulative in circumstantial clauses that stresses the next thing to happen in a sequence of things. Tohu and bohu are not always speaking of evil, but rather, of empty space. We connect empty space with the void of God, thus His Judgment; but care must be taken to define the word, not the result. In many Scriptures, the word tohu, for instance refers to the wilderness or desert, where life is conspicuously absent. A false argument against the Gap Theory is that darkness always symbolizes sin and judgment. While Author Davis, has made some arguments against the Gap Theory, his suggestion that darkness is sometimes good for man as reflected in the Word of God is wrong and misleading, and confuses the deeper typological meanings within the Word of God. Darkness does not reflect the light of the LORD God, and is always away from Him. The LORD God did not create darkness. He separated His created light from darkness. In fact, the author is guilty of the same thing that he used in arguing the Gap Theory; sloppy exegesis by assigning a meaning to a word by result rather than definition. For instance, the author argues the point that darkness symbolizes sin, yet he can prove it does not by quoting Ps. 104:19-24. "He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep [forth]." (Psalms 104:19-20 KJV) The author incorrectly suggests that physical darkness is not inherently evil because of this reference in Psalms. In fact, this Scripture speaks of the "beasts" who are unclean and evil, and the time and place that they dwell within as they "creep". Creeping beasts are not comfortable in the light of God, but rather do their business as far away from Him as possible, in the darkness of night. The conclusion the author draws from this example is wrong. The typology of darkness is the substance that is separated from the created light of God. All darkness is away from God, and the dwelling place of creeping beasts and sin. The Word of God consistently and always uses the concept of darkness in this manner. Thus, the author has lost credibility by implying that darkness is sometimes good. It is that poor interpretation by the author that sheds most light upon the problem with the Gap Theory. When someone tries to adapt meanings to Hebrew words, they invariably make their belief fit. The Hebrew language is malleable and can be bent in all kinds of ways. Just like our English language, word meanings can change even in context. The only true way to determine the exact meaning is to know the speaker and understand the spoken. The best argument against the Gap Theory, in my opinion, is to know God and His Word. A scholar can argue the bits and pieces of Hebrew and come up with faulty conclusion. Both Davis and Chalmers did good jobs proclaiming their belief of the definition of a word; but their failure to be knowledgeable about the Word of God and its typological usage of the word "darkness" could bring damnation to many if their views were embraced. The Gap Theory and the Argument against Gap Theory (as expressed by the author) are without merit. Both fail to consider the Truth of God as reflected in His Word of God, both from the Bible and the presence of our Lord and Savior. While it is worthy to know where people get off in their spiritual journeys, it is more important that spiritual leaders express the truth always, and not just when it fits their belief. Darkness is not good. It is the dwelling place of sin and evil. Most importantly, it is the farthest point away from the light of God, and not a place anyone would want to be. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:3-4 KJV) Light is good. Darkness is not. God divided the light from the darkness. There is no gap; there is no argument to these words. How these words cause affect to the waste and void, are worthy to be examined; however, to use the concrete interpretation that is easily known by Gen 1:2-4, and try to manipulate it into something it is not, makes for a faulty teaching and is bothersome. The author also points out that the argument based upon the word for "replenish the earth" is extremely weak. He says that the Hebrew verb simply means "fill" not "refill." According to Strong's Hebrew Concordance the word "maw-law'" means many things. It is "a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):- accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full(-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-]flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-]full, + have wholly." (Strong 2001, 04390) The word supports the translation of both fill and refill. Therefore, he best way to argue against the Gap Theory is to present the Creation of God in a logical, chronological order with a balanced examination of the Hebrew verbs and a consideration of the complete Word of God. When this approach is taken, the verb usage shows the LORD God's different ways of creating the Earth, and the development of His Creation as it progressed.
Bibliography |
|
Cite Article Source
MLA Style Citation: About the Author Kathy L. McFarland is a Becker Bible Studies Teacher and Author of Guided Bible Studies for Hungry Christians. She is Idaho State Coordinator for Huck PAC, Religious Studies student of Liberty University, Hebrew language student attending Israeli taught Ulpan, and a Homeschool parent teaching the things of God. She is also well-known as a child advocate of innocent children tortured and suffering from the abuse of sexual perversion, out-of-control violence, and pathetic neglect by a carnal world gone mad. |
|
|
