Largely under the influence of the Scofield
Reference Bible (a work now known to have many flaws, even if
put together by a very sincere man), many Christians during the
last 150 years have come to believe what is known as 'The Gap
Theory'- This theory states that when reading Genesis Chapter
One, we should pause and place millions of years between Genesis
1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
I must admit that I once adopted this procedure. Oddly, it did
not occur to me that to pause and place millions of years between
two verses which give little or no hint of them, amounted to the
imposition of an outside concept upon the Word of God.
Neither did it worry me in those days that this was the flawed
theological practise of eisegesis, which is to 'put
something into', rather than 'draw things out of' the
Bible! Drawing understanding out of the Bible (the correct
way), is exegesis!
According to the Gap Theory, this is how we should handle the
first two verses of Genesis:
The 'gap' theorists say something happened
between these verses because God creates things perfectly, but in
verse 2 the Hebrew words 'tohu' and 'bohu' are used; tohu:
'without form', bohu: 'void'. Gap people found the most extreme
(and often exaggerated) renditions of these words they could
find. Sometimes 'tohu' was said to mean 'utter desolation' and
'bohu' was claimed to mean something like 'utterly wasted and
empty'.
The truth is, however, that tohu refers to things in a morally
neutral state, or in an unfinished state. Bohu is best simply
rendered 'unfilled' or 'empty' (there was nothing or nobody in
the world yet).
The theory claimed that the rebellion of Lucifer and the angels
who followed him occurred between these two verses which is why
the original creation was ruined. Gappists often place
pre-historic animals, such as dinosaurs, in that original
destroyed creation. So, effectively, verses 2 onwards is a
re-creation!
The Gappists attempted to claim further support from the word
'replenish' which occurs in the KJV in verse 28.
(‘… and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply
and replenish the earth’), but this does not support the
gap theory as Gappists have claimed. Linguist DR Charles Taylor
writes, ‘As translated in 1611, it
(‘replenish’) was merely a parallel to
‘fill’, and the prefix ‘re-’ didn’t
mean ‘again’, but ‘completely’. The same
Hebrew word male is used in Genesis 1:22, and is there translated
‘fill (the seas)’, so there was no need to translate
it differently in verse 28. But it seemed to some that a word
starting with 're' must mean something like 'repeat' or 're-do',
but this is just not so in the case of this old English word! It
simply means 'fill'.
I am about to give the reader a link to an article which
discusses the great shortcomings (especially theological
shortcomings) of this imposition on the natural flow of Genesis
One, in great depth; but first, let me just ask the question as
to WHY anybody would ever have attempted to insert many
eras of time between these two verses.
The Gappists became active when evolution was rapidly gaining
acceptance and they felt that the text of Genesis One - as it
stood - did not explain the teaching that this world is billions
of years old (an age of the earth which evolution would
require)!!
THIS is why the Gappists chose to impose millions or
billions of years between these two verses. By the way, the
Gappists were certainly Bible-believers, I would not want anybody
to doubt that, but they were overly concerned about
somehow reconciling claims that this world is millions, or
billions, of years old with Genesis One. Today, in a post-modern
age, we would tend to smile at that! Why? Because evolutionary
theory is now coming under enormous pressure as it becomes more
and more obvious that the teaching that mankind is descended from
apes is a pure fiction which has nothing to substantiate
it, certainly nothing in the fossil record (as even many
evolutionists admit!). There is also increasing evidence that
this earth is not millions or billions of years old at
all, yet scientism will not relinquish the billions of
years scenario since to do so would be to admit that
macro-evolution never occurred.
To find the full article go to the third link below.
Robin A Brace
2003.