Genesis 1:1-2 and the Gap Theory

The Bible is not a science book but as I have claimed earlier in this blog, where it touches on proven science it is accurate and reliable. None of us know all of the mechanisms God used to create the universe and so believers generally view the creation from three standpoints. Each view makes valid points and each will determine how the creation event in the Bible will be interpreted. It should be remembered that all three are theories and should be acknowledged as such and not used to ostracize or disfellowship other believers. All three view the creation story as recorded in the WHOLE Bible as divinely inspired.

There are several theories of Creationism among Christian believers. The Three Most Common Biblical Creation Models are the “Gap” theory; the second is referred to as the “Age-Day” theory. The third theory is the "Literalist" in which the original universe, including earth were created in six literal days about 6011 years ago (4004 BC).

1. “Gap” or “Reconstruction” Theory. This theory suggests the condition in Genesis 1:2 is the result of a cataclysmic judgment involving the fall of the angels; that there was a primeval creation, complete in itself, in which the Angels were created as well as an inhabited pre-Adamite earth. After an unknown interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there was a rebellion by Lucifer who was cast out onto the earth (Isaiah 14:12-14; Luke 10:18) perpetuating a catastrophe creating the conditions of Gen. 1:2. Therefore, the six creative days in the following verses would be the new creation of the earth that had become desolate.

Problem: That death was in the world before Adam sinned.

Solution: Sin (iniquity) was found in Lucifer. (Isaiah 14:16-17; Ezekiel 28:11-19)

At some point (in Genesis 1:2) the Holy Spirit began brooding over the waters covering the earth as God began to create the earth as a home for man and the life we see about us. When Adam disobeyed God and obeyed Lucifer, he forfeited all that God had given him to Lucifer, and that old serpent became ‘god of this world’ (2 Corinthians 4:4) over which he has no right (Psalm 24:1; 1 Corinthians 10:26) and to whom Adam by nature became servant.

2. “Age-Day Theory”

This theory regards the first two verses of Genesis as that of the original creation in its raw state as from nothing, while the remaining part of the chapter is a formation and organization of the matter thus created. Genesis 1:1-2 is merely an introductory statement of fact, with each creative day being an indeterminate period or era of time. This is based on verses like 2 Peter3:8 which equates a thousand years as a day. These “era’s” are the geologic era’s t hat fit into modern scientific theories. How long it was, we do not know but ample space is given to all the requisitions of geology.

Problems:

(1). The Scripture says that each day of the creation week is “an evening and a morning.”

(2). The geologic era’s of science do not correspond to the same order that life appears in the scripture.

(3). Plant life was made before there was sunshine. If the age-day theory is correct then plant life survived an era or at least a thousand years without it.

Solution: none

24 Hour / Six Day Creation Theory (Young Earth Creationism)

This theory says that the entire universe was created by God in 6 equal twenty four hour days about 6,011 years ago according to Ussher's Chronology.

Genesis 1:1-2 is an introductory statement showing the earth at the outset, like a lump of clay that God began to squeeze and form into the earth we live in today. Proponents of this theory often say that it is futile to question creation for God said “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4) and “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Problem: The stars & ‘sons of God’ were witness to the creation of the earth. (Job 38:6, 7) How can this be if the stars weren’t created until the fourth day? See other problems.

I believe in both an old and young earth interpretation. God created it from one that was destroyed. This does not conflict with the Bible at all as some have claimed.

(Definitions are derived primarily from Strong's Concordance)

Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
In the beginning…
In the beginning God -- Here the Hebrew word for God is 'el-o-heem' which is a plural form
of; 1) "gods" in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the "supreme God;" occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), (very) great, judges, mighty.

"In the beginning God created…" Here "created" comes from a Hebrew word pronounced "baw-raw'"

'Baw-raw'' is a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):—choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." Earth here is the same word as 'earth' which is defined as 'dry land' in verse

Genesis 1:10: "And God called the dry land Earth"

The gap in the creation story is right here, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 for it says-

Genesis 1:2. “And the earth [**was] without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

The words I've italicized are terms used in the Bible to commonly describe the aftermath of divine Judgement, not the creation. To say that this a state of the creative act is to contradict every specific creative act of the God who creates all things orderly and whom Isaiah says clearly (Isaiah 45:18) "God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

The word vain is from the Heb. word pronounced toòhuò or to'-hoo. Same word used in Genesis 1:2:

And the earth was without form ( toòhuò or to'-hoo) which comes from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain:—confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness and void (boòhuò or bo'-hoo) comes from an unused root meaning to be empty; a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:—emptiness, void.

and darkness (khoh-shek') was upon the face of the deep.
From the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:—dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

How do Young Earth Creationists (YEC) reconcile the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 to a God who Creates all things good?

Now if God said He didn't create the earth in vain, (toòhuò or to'-hoo) who are we to say that He did? This is a state that the earth came into.

______________________________________
**Also translated “became” in the footnote of the Torah.

Biblical Truth or Contradictions

I encountered a man who threw away his beliefs in the Bible citing as an example the difference between Matthew and Mark's Gospels with regard to the healing of the blind beggars of Jericho.

How can the differences between Mark and Matthew’s account of the healing of the blind both be true in every detail?

The story of the healing of the blind beggars is one of the stories that skeptics use to discount the accuracy and inspiration of the Bible itself. Here are the two accounts:

Mark 10:46-52 KJV

46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me.
48 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me.
49 And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee.
50 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.
51 And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.
52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

Matthew 20:29-34 KJV

29 And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.
30 And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.
31 And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.
32 And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?
33 They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.
34 So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
____________________
Both accounts identify the proximity of the city of Jericho as the site where the miracle took place.
Both accounts record the presence of a large crowd accompanying Jesus and his disciples.
Matthew records that there were two blind men while Mark records only one, and names him as Bartimaeus.
Both accounts say the blind had been sitting by the roadside, begging.
Both accounts say that the blind cried aloud for mercy from Jesus, son of David.
Both accounts tell of the crowds attempt to shut the(m) up.
Both accounts say that Jesus responded with an invitation.
Both accounts say that Jesus asked what the desire of him was.
Both accounts record the same answer to Jesus’ question.
Both accounts record the miracle of the healing of the blind. Matthew adds a detail that Jesus touched the blind while Mark omits the small detail. This is not a problem even for the skeptics.
Mark records Jesus’ dismissal of Bartimaeus by saying, “Go thy way…” Matthew omits that detail—again this is not a problem for both accounts declare that the blind who were healed followed Jesus.
____________________
Out of all of the information provided in both gospels, there is only one point of difference, yet some will toss out the plenary inspiration of scripture in total because of this. Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel! But is this the infallible Word of God or not? If so, how does Mark give us the name of one blind man when Matthew tells us of two unnamed blind men?
____________________

My answer:

Matthew was there. As he walked along with Jesus that day he witnessed two blind beggars crying out to Jesus. Matthew's eyewitness is not in question. The crowd tried to silence the blind beggars but the blind cried out all the more. Upon hearing them, Jesus stopped and called for them. (Isn't that just like Jesus!) He asked them what they wanted most and they answered, 'that we might see!' He touched their eyes and their blindness was gone, and they could see! Jesus gave them leave to go their own way but they decided to accompany Jesus with the disciples as did many others. This is even more evident later when the disciples were to pick a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21-23), one who followed along with the disciples throughout Jesus' entire earthly ministry, (from the beginning) and there were at least two men who fit that catagory.

Mark (John Mark) wasn’t a witness on the day that the miracle of the healing of the blind took place.
It is commonly said that Mark’s home was the site of the last supper and a gathering place on the day of Pentecost and a place where prayer meetings were held (Acts 12:12) in the early days of the church. Mark happened to be the nephew of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) and like a son to Peter (1 Peter 5:15) he traveled with Paul who criticised Marks immaturity early on but later desired and received Marks assistance.

The first appearance of Mark in the Bible is believed to be an autobiographical description of himself at the Garden of Gethsemane:

Mark 14:50-52

50 And they all forsook him, and fled.
51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

The fact that only Mark records this seemingly insignificant incident specifying a particular ‘certain young man’ makes it clear that this curious young man (Mark) was eyewitness if not the participant to whom he referred.
In the days that followed Jesus’ resurrection Mark became familiar with the men who followed Jesus, among whom was Bartimaeus, the blind beggar of Jericho. Listening intently to their stories and testimonies of the miracles of Jesus, Mark wrote them in his gospel account.

Mark’s gospel identifies the story as the healing of blind Bartimaeus, an apparent result of his hearing Bartimaeus’ own testimony from the former blind man's own mouth. Who the second blind man was or when he stopped following Jesus we aren’t told, but they were released by Jesus to go their own way. His name is unknown.

When observed in this likely scenario, there is absolutely no disagreement whatsoever in the stories recounted in the two gospels. The accounts themselves prove the truth of the miracle of the blind beggars of Jericho and the honesty, integrity and credibility of the Bible.

St. Luke Revisited

Most intelligent people, believers and skeptics alike agree on this one point concerning Luke's gospel, and the book of Acts. As one of those intelligent skeptics said, “I think it's quite plausible that they were written by the same author judging by textual analysis (both form and content), and by something akin to 'cross-referencing'. Also, in some ancient manuscripts they are contiguous."

OK, so much for the headway here.

A point we disagree on is the time of the writing of Luke’s gospel.
Some place the time of the writing much later than AD 60.
I base the writing of Luke simply on a study of the text - what it says - and a knowledge of the history of that day. Luke had to have been written before Acts and Acts had to have been written before Paul’s [journey to Spain and his re-arrest and] execution under Nero (around AD 66). Nero himself died in AD 67. Also there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70 under Titus. Further, I maintain that the pronouns (we, us) are a clear indication of Luke referring to his personal involvement in the account. To view it any other way would be to ignore the obvious context of the scripture or the writing style of its author or in general the common use of the language today.

Who was Theophilus?

I don’t know, nobody knows but he was not a ‘group of people,’ he was an individual.
First of all, both Luke and Acts begin by addressing him directly "Theophilus" meaning, "lover of God." Perhaps he was Jewish and Greek like Paul.
Though nobody knows for sure who he was, there are some clues. Consider that Theophilus was a man’s name, ergo he’s male. Then consider how he is addressed by the writer:
"...most excellent Theophilus"
This is an indication he (Theophilus) was a man of position, importance, and respected by his peers. He was interested in knowing if what he’d been taught about Christ was accurate, obviously interested specifically in the facts surrounding Christ and the Christian sect. Therefore I suspect he was a believer or contemplating conversion into the Christian faith.
Hence the statement by the writer (Luke) "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The writer puts his personal guarantee that he carefully investigated everything from the beginning so that Theophilus could rest assured the following documentation concerning Jesus Christ was certain. To say anything different flies in the face of logic and the likelihood that the writer would fabricate lies to such an honored person as Theophilus is virtually null. Now compare another translation of that statement:
Amplified Bible - SINCE [as is well known] many have undertaken to put in order and draw up a [thorough] narrative of the surely established deeds which have been accomplished and fulfilled in and among us,
2Exactly as they were handed down to us by those who from the [official] beginning [of Jesus' ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word [that is, of the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God],
3It seemed good and desirable to me, [and so I have determined] also after having searched out diligently and followed all things closely and traced accurately the course from the highest to the minutest detail from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4[My purpose is] that you may know the full truth and understand with certainty and security against error the accounts (histories) and doctrines of the faith of which you have been informed and in which you have been orally instructed."
And in fact, Luke’s gospel is an orderly account of the life of Christ.
Did Luke ‘copy and paste’ from Mark, as some say?
Most scholars believe that Mark was a resource used by both Matthew and Luke. So do I. But remember Mark is a very short gospel that begins with the ministry of Jesus unlike the other gospels. Matthew is much longer and goes back to the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, (that would be the way that a tax collector would view any genealogy and views Christ as the Jewish Messiah from a strictly Jewish perspective as evidenced by his statements, "this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet…"
Mark, on the other hand was a youth and his Gospel reflects that as his perspective centers on the miracle power of Christ.
Luke's gospel is much longer than Marks by comparison and concentrates more on the teachings of Christ and accounts for this by the many parables he records. Luke's viewpoint and genealogy of Christ is through Mary's lineage. (That's a summary of the synoptic gospels in a nut shell).

If Paul was a contemporary of the disciples, (and he was), then Luke was a contemporary of the disciples. Not at all a fabrication! He was a full grown man, educated in the healing arts (called a physician) and on occasion he traveled with Paul. Note also that Paul traveled with Mark in whose home the last supper was eaten and the same upper room that the outpouring of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2) occurred; but Paul had issues with Mark because of his immaturity.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm

Why do I say the writer was Luke? Admittedly it’s an assumption on my part and most scholar’s agree. That’s the prevailing theory based largely on tradition, and a process of elimination. Let me illustrate what I mean by that. We can see in some of Paul’s letters references to Luke in various locations with him at certain times in his ministry. They correspond to the statements that the writer of Acts (Luke) makes when he uses the “we "– "us" nouns. Though there were at times others present, the others don’t fit; i.e. one time it was Paul, Luke and Demas who were traveling together. (Col. 4:14). Demas was not considered as the writer because later on down the road Paul writes "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.” I therefore maintain that it was Luke who was present with Paul as he wrote this epistle from house arrest in Rome and the specifics are mentioned by the writer of Acts (notice the “we” references in Act’s 28) at the close of the book. Is the evidence conclusive? Not entirely. Is it the best we have to go on? I firmly believe its far superior to any other theory regarding the authorship of the book. Until someone comes up with something more conclusive I’ll stick to the 'theory'…Because I truly believe it’s the truth based on the best evidence available. In every Bible, without exception, the book bears Luke's name. In the detective business that's called a c-l-u-e.

photo by R. Hoeppner

The Gospel of St. Luke

Was the Writer of Luke the Same Who Wrote Acts?

It is evident that the author of Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Acts were the same. Luke and Acts were both addressed to one Theophilus with reference to the first made in the second: (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-4, respectively). The events in Acts are a natural continuation and dovetail perfectly to the events written in Luke.
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. - Luke 1:1-4

1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. - Acts 1:1-4



What information can be known from the introductions?

• A number of partial and or disordered accounts of the facts of the life of Christ were extant at the time.


• These facts were well known to the Christian world of the day.


• The writer stated that his purpose was to put the events of the life of Christ in an accurate and logical order.


• His record goes back to and includes insights that would be known to apostles, eyewitnesses and possibly even relatives of Jesus.


• The author considered himself at least as well informed at the others and as capable of writing an account on his own responsibility (“it seemed good to me also”).[1]


• He cites his sources as ‘eyewitnesses’ and ministers of the word who were able to account for things ‘from the beginning.’ This is a reference to the beginning of the information he sets forth to record before the birth of Christ.

He was a contemporary of the disciples and early church leaders.

Authorship and Occupation

The author was a participant in many of the events he writes about and fellow traveler with Paul proven by the “we” and "us" words he uses; The book of Acts goes on for 16 chapters before the “we” is introduced in Acts 16:10-12 (In one manuscript it appears as early as chapter 10). His occupation as a physician is noted in Colossians 4:14; “Luke, the beloved doctor, sends his greetings, and so does Demas.”

10. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
11. Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
12. And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. -- Acts 16:10-12

This establishes Luke as a traveling companion with Paul on his second missionary journey. He accompanied Paul to Philippi, but did not share his imprisonment there. After Paul’s release Luke remained at Philippi. On Paul's third visit to Philippi (20:5, 6) probably seven or eight years later, he meets with Luke and again they travel on together. From this time Luke was Paul's constant companion during his journey to Jerusalem (20:6-21:18).

The ‘we’ references eliminate Timothy and all of those mentioned in Acts 20:5 as writers because ‘we’ didn’t accompany these on their trip (Demos fell away from the faith and abandoned Paul so he’s not considered as the writer either). They all waited for “us” at Troas. Luke was a physician according to Paul and he was a man who could write well and was very observant as can be surmised from the best account we have of ancient shipping (Acts 27).
There is external evidence as well. The Gospel was used by Justin Martyr (second century), Tatian, Marcion and Tertullian who quoted or alluded to the Gospel in excess of five hundred times.[1]

DATE

Luke was written after the death of Christ and before Acts was written. Since Acts ends abruptly with Paul’s confinement in Rome with no mention of Paul’s later travel to Spain or his execution which occurred under Nero about 67 AD. Some scholars fix the date of the writing of Luke around 60 AD or less than thirty years from Christ.
There is plenty of evidence I have not covered here but suffice it to say all the best evidence of the Gospel points to Dr. Luke being the author, contemporary with the Apostles.
[1] New Testament Survey Merril C. Tenney P. 173, 179.

Photograph/ last supper statues in Rhyolite, CA by R. Hoeppner

How Enduring is the Word of God?

Jesus said, "For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished." - Matthew 5:18

The Psalmist said, "Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven [stands firm as the heavens]. -Psalm 119:89

Paul wrote to Timothy: "Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work."