Dear Gentle reader,
As we consider the interesting perspective of verse 2 in Genesis one we must consider two points of view. One is that their must be a gap between verse one the creation and verse two.
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. (Gen 1:2)
It is supposed by many that the words "without form, and void" describe the first condition of the earth after its creation, and that the six "days" of chapter One are therefore the six successive stages of the original creation-process; but the more one examines this the less tenable it becomes.
Let’s begin with presenting one of the several possible sides of this seeming difficult passage. I remind those of you who might say "God said it and that settles it"! God also gave you life and a brain (as a dear Rabbi once said) and He expects you to make use of both." It is of no use if all you ever do is merely read a passage of Scripture and close the Book and walk away never to think again about what was said, or the meaning of what you read, or what is the significance of the meaning, or how does that impact my understanding of Scripture? Does God want to reveal Himself to those who seek Him out? Did God not say " And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart". (Jer 29:13)".
If the Bible is the inspired word of God (I use that Greek prepositional if - if and it is true) , nothing can be more important that to understand aright its teachings as to the origin of things. Yet the fact is no chapters in the Bible have been more misunderstood and misrepresented that these first two chapters and these first two verses of Genesis.
Note: The following is presented as the best and most persuasive argument of the so called gap theory (to which I must admit I subscribe to for many years until I began to look for myself "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."—This is "the world that then was" of 2 Peter 3:6.
And the earth became tohu and bohu.—The verb "was" means, and is translated "became" in Genesis 2:7, 4:14, 9:15, 19:26, etc.
It became (tohu). Whatever may be the meaning of the word rendered "without form," it is distinctly stated in Isaiah 44:18 that God "created it not tohu." It must therefore have "become" so, as stated in Genesis 1:2.
The combination of the two words tohu and bohu occurs in Isaiah 45:19, 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:23, where it may be seen that it denotes ruin, emptiness, waste, desolation.
This was the end of "the world that then was" (2 Peter 3:5,6).
The chapter next goes on to describe the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2 Peter 3:7); and in 2 Peter 3:13 we are informed that these will be followed hereafter by "a new heavens and new earth."
If we interpret the chapter on these lines, and do not make Moses or the Holy Spirit responsible for the mistakes of translators and commentators, we have a surer foundation for any application we make.
In doing this we destroy the miserable imagination of a criticism which regards it as either an "allegory" or as a "myth."
The interpretation tells us that at some time in the eternal ages past, "God created the heavens and the earth."
And then, that at some time, in some manner, and for some reason (which are not revealed) it became a ruin, empty, waste, desolate, and overwhelmed with water.
"The world that then was" (Gen 1:2).—The accurate reading in the English of the AV (KJV) Genesis 1:2 will be sufficient to show there is something in the verse which needs explanation; and when we have explained it we shall find that it points to a wonderful exposition of the Creation, and provides a complete answer to all the cavils of Geologists.
This discovery would be impossible if the Revised Version were used, as the Revisers deliberately discarded the use of italics in certain cases, one of which was in the case of the verb "to be," which does not exist in Hebrew.
In Genesis 1:2 (AV) we read: "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
Here, it will be seen that, the first "was" is in Roman type, while the second is in Italic type. This accuracy tells us that the latter verb, "was," represents the verb to be; and that the former "was" must represent a different verb, and not the verb "to be." This is the case; and the verb is hyahaf (hayah), to become, come to pass.
That this is its meaning is clear from the very next verse (v 3): "Let there be light, and there was light." Here the verb for "be" and "was" is hayah, and means become, while, in verse 4, the verb "was" is the verb to be, and is in italics.
The same use of "was" (Roman type) and "was" (Italic type) may be seen in verses 9 and 10; and in verses 11 and 12.
If we enquire further about the verb hayah we find it in Genesis 2:7, "and man became a living soul; 4:14, "it shall come to pass"; 9:15, "the waters shall no more become a flood"; 19:26, Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."
From all this we assuredly learn that Genesis 1:2 should read, "and the earth BECAME without form."
Having made this discovery we now pursue it further; and we "search the Scriptures" to find out whether God has said anything else about the way in which He created the earth. And we find it in Isaiah 45:18. Here the sentences are heaped together, in order to impress us with the fact that, He who created the earth, ought to know, and be able to tell us, how He made it. Note the words:
"Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens;
Elohim himself that formed the earth, and made it;
He hath established it,
He created it not tohu."
But this word (tohu) is the very word which is translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2. So that, whatever tohu means, it is evident that God did not create the earth tohu. Therefore it must have become so, at some time, in some way, and from some cause which we are not told.
It is clear from this that in Genesis 1:1 we have the record concerning what is called in 2 Peter 3:6 "the world that then was." This earth, we are there told also, "being overflowed with water perished." This is exactly what is stated in Genesis 1:1, 2.
So that at the end of the first verse we must put a very large full stop; or draw a line; or leave a blank space, so as to separate verse 1 from what follows in verse 2, which relates to "the heavens and earth which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which will continue, until the time comes for "the new heavens and the new earth" of 2 Peter 3:13, and of many other Scriptures.
When Geologists have settled how many years they require between the first and second verses of Genesis 1 there is ample room for all they want, and a large margin beside.
Meanwhile, we may well conclude that all the fossils and remains which are found belonged to "the world that then was," and thus, at one stroke, remove all friction between Geology and Scripture.
Again, we ask, why assume that all the Geological phenomena pertain to the earth "which is now," when it is this very assumption which creates the difficulty? and compels us to ignore all the phenomena of God's Word mentioned above? It is quite correct to say we have the original creation of the universe stated in chapter 1:1 and the subsequent creation of the present animal order in verse 21 and the creation of man in verse 27 yet the statement needs qualifying and explaining.
A discrimination must be made (the Bible certainly makes it) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of the truth. (2Ti 2:15)
Between the original creation of the earth and its subsequent reconstruction with view to its becoming the habitation of man. We can not too strongly emphasis that the six "days" in this first chapter of Genesis do not describe the original creation of the earth. Those who suppose or assert this are then obliged to treat the "six days" as vast periods of time, so as to make Genesis fit with what has been shown by modern science concerning the antiquity of our earth. Yet what they fail to do is to reconcile Genesis and geology; and what is worse, they involve the Scriptures itself in unresolvable self-contradictions. It is for this very purpose that we must read and study Scripture carefully, If there is a error you may be sure that it is on our part, from not understanding Scripture aright.
To begin with the needless conflict between Scripture and Science is unnecessary, caused by I fear those who are neither Scientists nor scholars of the Word. According to the reckoning based on Bible chronology, the race of Adam did not appear on this earth until six or seven thousand years ago; but modern geology has now shown beyond doubt that the earth existed immense ages before then. How are we to account, then, for that vast period of earth’s existence before the time when, according to the Bible, the Adamic race first appeared? If we say that there is no break between the first two verses of Genesis, and that the words, "without form and void" in verse 2, describe the first condition of the earth at its creation away back beyond all the geologic ages, then of course, the only way we can fit in the vast expanse of time between the creation of the earth and the comparatively recent appearances of man is to say that the six "days" of Genesis 1 were six great ages, and that man appeared somewhere in the sixth.
I might point out as an aside that vegetable remains from the pre-Adamite ages are found in the earth’s strata, as also are fossils of animals which had eyes. However in the six days of Genesis no creatures having eyes were created until after the fourth day, when the sun was caused to shine on the earth. How shall we explain re-Adamite vegetables, and these animals having eyes? If we deny the break between the first two verses of Genesis, and say that the words "without form, and void" describe the earth at its original creation, we find ourselves shut up to three expedients, each of which is untenable.
First, we may say that the six days were six ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, immediately following the creation of the earth in its waste and void condition. But in that case Genesis is made to teach that the earth is only six or seven thousand years old (seeing that man was created on the sixth of those days, and the human race is only six or seven thousand years old), and at once geology parts company with Scripture.
Second, we may say that the six days were six ordinary days but not following the original creation of the earth in its vast period waste and void condition. But in that case, during the vast period between the original creation of the earth and those six days of only a few thousand years ago, the earth must have remained in its condition of chaos and emptiness and darkness; and this again puts us at war with geology; for how can we account for that pre-Adamite vegetation, and animals having eyes, in that dense, age-long chaos and darkness?
Third, we may say that the six days were immense ages which followed upon the earth’s original creation in its waste and void condition. But in this case the beginning of the present order of the animals and man is carried thousands and thousands of years further back than any fair dealing with the language of Scripture would allow.
If, however we reject these three expedients, recognizing that there is a break between the first two verses of Genesis, so that verse 1 refers to the original creation, and verse two refers to a desolation with occurred later, all such difficulty is removed. There is ample and intelligent play for all geological discoveries, and at the same time we do justice to the language of Scripture.
Enough for now gentle reader, consider what we have proposed and next time I will show further how Science does not in any way refute Scripture but actually confirms the truth of the Word of God,
To be continued.....
No comments:
Post a Comment