1: The writing of Genesis by Moses occurred around 1400 BC or so. Moses was a well educated person, having received the best education the power of the day (Egypt) had to offer. In addition, he did not write Genesis because he needed something else to do. Rather, the Holy Spirit was moving him. And the Holy Spirit could have used several words to describe the time period for creation: perhaps eras, ages, years, a very long time, etc. Yet, He did not. But rather He opted for the word “day.” Perhaps it is becuase He intended to convey a particular idea, that the creation of the earth was a matter of days. As it was mentioned above, later the work week and day of rest are based on the creation pattern. Obviously assigning the same word different meaning when one is the basis for the other, would seem silly.

2: As I read the creation account of Genesis, it strikes me that Moses was careful to include “evening and morning.” If the days are other than 24-hrs days, does this mean that creation occurred in long periods of darkness and light? I am perplexed as to how the animals and plants survived these longs preriods of darkness.

3: In Gen. 2 we read that God rested on the seventh day. If the seventh day is the same length that the other days, and there is no indication that it is not, then God really took a lonnnnnnnnnnng rest. Boy I feel like I need a God-sized rest!

On the other hand, perhaps the Holy Spirit meant what He said and said what He meant. Yet, I do think that indeed there is validity to the gap theory – by that I am referring to the gap in Biblical thinking some so-called Bible believers have.

-Vince

If this is true about Jesus and His 3-year ministry, would it not be more true about God?

What arrogance, then, to think that all God did in the process of creation would be, could be, captured in a few verses. The story of creation is a vastly condensed version of something our human minds could not begin to comprehend, were we told exactly how it happened. Moses wrote it for the people who had been in bondage in Egypt, who were about to take the Promised Land and encounter all of the gods and religious myths of the local people that lived there. The purpose of the Creation story was twofold: to proclaim that there was one God, not many, and that this one God created all things and it is to Him we/they owe our/their allegience, not the gods of the heathen locals.

Do we think that the Bible tells us everything that God ever did? Do we think that the Bible tells us about everything God ever created? Do you think we are the only beings God ever created? There are millions of suns out there, some presumeably with planets. All created for us? All created only 6,000 years ago? God has existed for eternity, yet the only things He ever created were created just 6,000 years ago? Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that Moses believed that?

The Bible is not the story of God. It is the story of man, and God’s relation to him. The focus of the Bible is man’s creation, his fall, and his redemption. The Bible does not tell us what God has been doing with the rest of His life, apart from man, simply because there is no need for us to know that. But God has had a life outside of us and our problems. And I can accept that there is far more to God than what some folk’s theology seems to allow.

What if this interpretation were true: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [GAP, with unknown creations on this earth, which were all destroyed.] And the earth became without form, and void.” (as part of the destruction of the previous creation). And then God began the process of making the earth hospitable for the man He was about to create, the story of which is told in Genesis.

And then, what if the following were also true: the universe was created billions of years ago; there have been multiple creations on multiple planets, each creation created and destroyed according to God’s own desires, suns darkened and re-lit at God’s good pleasure; there have been one or more previous creations on planet earth, created and destroyed according to God’s own desires, before He created Adam; perhaps our sun and moon were created when Adam was created, perhaps they were already there but went dark when the last creation was destroyed, waiting for God to light them again; Adam and Eve and life as we know it were created 6,000 years on this planet, and light from the sun, moon and stars (all millions or billions of years old) was allowed to again strike the earth.

How would any of that, if it were true, alter in any way the truth presented in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation? How does what God has done to and for other creations affect at all in any way the promises He has made to us in the Bible?

I have never thought that I was the only thing that God ever created. I have never thought that the Bible told me everything there is to know about God and what He has been doing out there in the Universe throughout eternity. And at the same time, I have never doubted for a minute His promises to me as revealed in the Bible. I find it odd that people would think otherwise. But yet it seems they do.

Finally, if the Gap theory of Genesis 1:1 were true, and there have been previous creations on this earth that were destroyed before the rest of Genesis begins, the fossil record could perhaps show evidence of these prior creations (depending on how thorough the destruction of the creation was).

Well said. Thanks to all for the lively discussion.

Isaiah 45:18 “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, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

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 use of the word “tôhû” in Isaiah is different than the use of the word in Genesis. In Genesis, the Bible says that the earth was “tôhû.” God had created it one verse ago (although on the same day: day one) yet it clearly was not finished. In Isaiah, the Bible says that God did not create the world “tôhû.” Genesis says that God created the earth and it was “tôhû.” Notice that in Isaiah the verse says that God created it not IN vain. You would have a very convincing argument if the verse said, “he created it not vain.” However, it says, “he created it not IN vain.” Almost every time in the Bible that the words “in vain” are used together it means without purpose, or to no avail. That is obviously the use in Isaiah simply because of the grammatical structure of the verse. It may be the same word, but since when does that fact mean that it must have the same usage? Think of the English word day for instance. I could use it to mean a literal 24 hour day, the daylight part of the day, back in my dad’s day…etc. It may be the same word, but the usage of the word in the sentence determines its meaning. In Isaiah a closer look at the sentence structure reveals that the meaning of the word “tôhû” is that God did not create the world without a purpose.

You have given a good challenge to all of us to study this out and pray about it, and I assure you, I intend to do so. That is the attitude with which we should approach all study of scripture.

Please consider studying out the words, as I have suggested. Take a week, and pray for objectivity. It will benefit you, even if you keep your same view.

And the respect for gifted teachers is actually advocated in the Bible. To be so dismissive is not honoring the Word. Your scholarship in languages, I am guessing, is nowhere near Torrey’s. Am I wrong about that?

That’s a silly argument. You’re grappling with the historically orthodox understanding of creation. Who’s got the bigger nerve here?

Even though it is not a “commentary on creation,” it does talk about a key fact of creation.

That’s right. That key fact is that God did not create the earth for the purpose of being a wasteland, but He created it with a purpose of bearing fruit. Without twisting and wringing the text and context, that’s all that’s saying about creation.

What you’re doing is like saying Jesus wasn’t really stating that Jonah was a literal event when he mentioned the “sign of Jonah,” because in context he was rebuking the sign seekers.

I most certainly am doing no such thing. I don’t argue against the idea that fact statements in context are truthful. At all. If Scripture says something, it’s true.

Context is key for the overall meaning of a passage, but it does not mean a fact statement within the passage cannot have the plain meaning that it does.

But this begs the question. “The plain meaning that it does” is exactly what’s being questioned here. The plain meaning in Isaiah 45:18 is that God didn’t create the world for nothing, but to be inhabited. You’re introducing an alternative way of interpreting it, and then saying that that’s its plain meaning. It seems to me that in this passage you have to ignore the context (and content) of the passage to come up with your interpretation of a parenthetical remark.

But anyway… explain about your pre-Adamic race. Are they not humans? If they aren’t, what did they do that God would curse the earth for?

And I don’t think it’s prideful to dismiss what men say based on Scripture. I think it’s prideful to permit men’s ideas to rival Scripture’s. If Paul says Adam was the first man, I understand that to mean that there were no humans before Adam. Call me nuts, but I think that’s pretty straightforward. If someone wants to suggest that Adam was not the first human, then I have no problem calling 1Cor 15:45 a “knock out” refutation. Let’s not revere men more than we revere what Scripture actually says.

“Paul’s filling in something here, by saying that Adam is the first man. So unless you’re willing to say the Apostle Paul is a poor exegete and that the Holy Spirit of God was a slave to Paul’s militant young earth creationism, a pre-Adamic race doesn’t square.”

But Mike, that’s what “pre-Adamic” means!

Honestly, you’re grappling with some of the best Bible teachers of all (Torrey, Barnhouse, etc.) Don’t think that you have a simple “knock out” punch here. There might be a bit of pride in that.

I do believe that young earth creationism is closer to the text than the standard old earth views. I think you should admit that there is at least a basis for the view I am advocating. You may disagree with it, but I think you ought to do a little deeper study first. I’m not sure you’re fully aware of all that’s there. Study each key word in Gen. 1:2, as they are used throughout the Bible.

“Also, the Isaiah 45 interpretation you’re offering is really not letting that passage speak for itself. Consider the intent of that chapter. It’s not intended to be a commentary on creation; it’s supposed to be how God is calling the nation of Israel to trust in Him.”

This is a distinction without a difference. You are limiting yourself and the Bible here. You’re actually READING OUT a plain statement of Scripture. Even though it is not a “commentary on creation,” it does talk about a key fact of creation.

What you’re doing is like saying Jesus wasn’t really stating that Jonah was a literal event when he mentioned the “sign of Jonah,” because in context he was rebuking the sign seekers.

That won’t wash. ANY context can carry a number of fact statements within it. That way, Scripture truly speaks. Context is key for the overall meaning of a passage, but it does not mean a fact statement within the passage cannot have the plain meaning that it does.

Paul’s quoting Genesis 2:7: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Not exactly a word for word citation, right? Paul’s filling in something here, by saying that Adam is the first man. So unless you’re willing to say the Apostle Paul is a poor exegete and that the Holy Spirit of God was a slave to Paul’s militant young earth creationism, a pre-Adamic race doesn’t square.

Also, the Isaiah 45 interpretation you’re offering is really not letting that passage speak for itself. Consider the intent of that chapter. It’s not intended to be a commentary on creation; it’s supposed to be how God is calling the nation of Israel to trust in Him because of who He is, because of who He’s revealed Himself to them to be. He says, “Remember who I am. That I created all of this from nothing. Yet I didn’t intend for this creation to be some empty wasteland. I didn’t create it without purpose. In the same way, I did not set my favor on you in vain; I did not create a nation to be some empty wasteland. I intend to bring fruit from my creation (you, Israel), the same way I intended to bring fruit from all my creation (the earth).”

It’s so clear that it’s almost painful. It’s very true that it’s the same phrase, and so that does offer confusion for someone looking for it. But if we understand the intent of the passage, the traditional translation makes absolute sense, and is in tune perfectly with the intentions of the revelatory will of God.

“Presumably through the sin of some pre-Adamic race??? Where did this come from the text? This commentator is adding his own extra-biblical beliefs to the Bible and coming up with a belief that the text does not merit. This is dangerous.”

You’re overdoing it just a bit here, I think. First of all, it is, on its face, speculative. That’s what “presumably” means.

Is there any basis for it? Yes. Why did God send the flood to the earth in Genesis 6-8? Was this not judgment for sin?

Similarly, we are presented with a “deep” covering the earth in Gen. 1:2. There is a basis to presume God did the same thing.

Remember, the fall of Satan happend BEFORE Gen. 1:2. This also helps to explain what happened.

I know it’s difficult to have a paradigm challenged, esp. one that is so militant as young earth creationism has become. But I just want you to know that there is an alternative view that, for me, is more faithful to Scripture. Study out the words in Gen. 1:2 individually and allow yourself to at least contemplate the possibility…before you accuse one of the greatest Bible teachers of the 20th Century of being “dangerous.”

“To say, “The word translated “was” in Genesis 1:2 can with perfect propriety be translated “became.”, without substantiating it goes against the grain of all tranlators and most commentators.”

Give this some study. Right there in Strong’s, you’ll find these definitions: “1 to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.”

The team of translators for the NIV put “became” as a legitimate option (in a footnote).

I’m really not sure what you mean by “Torrey does no exegesis.” It certainly is. He didn’t just translate the word, he stated the meaning. The verse states plainly that God did NOT create the world “tohu.” But you find that same word in Gen. 1:2. How can this be?

Because that’s how the earth BECAME.