A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"

Nitpick coming up: No 'cherubims.' The word would be cherubim (Hebrew plural) or cherubs (English plural).

---

Archer

What you are really discussing here is a Jewish Midrash--a story told in the 'gaps' of Biblical narratives.

Midrash - Wikipedia

The Midrashim offer hundreds of interpretations and speculations about biblical narratives. From these sources come the tales of Lillith and mythical creatures being on on or off the ride of Noah's ark.It's interesting that evangelical Christians, who normally know little about Midrashic literature and in any case feel no obligation to believe it literally, would take such a different approach to this single idea. The subject is the age of the earth and suddenly they want to quote the Talmud.The source of this eagerness to turn a Midrash into a 'Gap Hypthothesis' is plain, of course. The idea offers a loophole that can be used to harmonize a young-earth narrative with an old-earth reality. It permits assumption of the vast amounts of time that natural history requires. The loophole can be expanded to offer time for a solar system and moons to form, crustal plates to shift, mountains to rise, and strata and fossils to accumulate.This desire to incorporate reality into faith is admirable. Many literalists do not bother to make the effort. But instead of going to these lengths to try to shoehorn milions of years between two lines of text, why not just toss the literalism? Why not let discoveries take their course and let the chips fall where they may?No one really takes all of Genesis literally. Do snakes talk? No. Is the sky made of hammered metal? No. Does knowledge of good and evil grow on trees? No. Do snakes eat dust? No.These are metaphors that do everything but take out a full-page ad in The New York Times announcing I'M A METAPHOR!So let them be metaphors. And let natural history be natural history.Contrivances are not necessary. Just let things be.

---

Archer

About the appearance of 'cherubims' for cherubim: Gotcha. I didn't realize that mistake appeared in the KJV.Take a look at the Oremus Bible Browser: oremus Bible Browser
NRSV, ecumenical canon, KJV option preserved.

---

Archer

arachnophilia writes: Points well made and well taken. (The serpent more often represented chaos in ancient times rather than evil, I believe, but that's a small point here.)It's also well to remember that the distinction between 'literal' and 'metaphorical' meanings is itself the product of a later age.You say the understandings of god varied. No doubt. The understandings of the serpent, the trees, and other elements of the story also would have varied. Even in ancient times, some minds understood their stories and images more literally, others less so. You can see these temperamental differences in the writers of the Tanakh and you can see it in other ancient religions (as when Socrates discusses the literal vs metaphorical reality of Athens's gods).You also mention alchemists. Alchemists, too, varied in how materially or spiritually--that is, how literally or metaphorically--they understood the nature of their project. Agreed. Not literally. But the statement could work as metaphor. Science did not exist. Genesis was the origin story of the day, sure. It was the received wisdom of the day, sure. It was the literature of the day, sure. The ancients might have understood it as a folk tale of the day, too. Fine. But no one thought of Genesis as 'science' as we know the term because there was no such thing. The kind of knowledge the ancients looked for in Genesis was a far cry from that sought by a modern literalist looking for a vapor canopy.Yes, the naive interpretation of the text would be literal, as it always is. This would hold especially true in a culture that has only one creation story to work with anyway. But people could observe then as well as now that snakes don't talk. People knew as well then as now that a single male human being alone in the world will feel lonely, and that it hardly takes a lot of trial and error to figure this out.How literally a given image might be taken would still vary from person to person depending on age, temperament and experience. But because the distinction between literal and poetic was fluid anyway, and because no competing stories existed within the culture, these differences in personal interpretation could remain nuances, not huge rifts. The necessity of distinguishing between metaphorical and literal is a modern one. The naive, out-of-the box interpretation would be literal, sure. But I don't see how anyone can say for a fact that this was always the only reading intended, as you seem to imply. The idea of a basic peshat reading as opposed to other kinds of readings is also a later invention. It comes from an age when distinguishing among different types of interpretation mattered far more.Literature is art. In a pre-scientific age it was not science. But it it was still art.The person or persons who crafted the story and shaped it as they passed it on made conscious decisions about what to include, what to leave out, what to modify and what to keep. At the beginning, clearly, they knew they were taking elements of Babylonian stories--the paradise, the fourfold river, the tree of life, the serpent--and adapting them to their own purpose. This purpose also meant there would be elements they would discard--polytheistic elements, mainly--in crafting a different picture. They made adjustments and shaped a story in a way that told others something important about the way the saw their deity operating in the universe.The audience accepted the story as real. Some, especially those less familiar with the creative process, might take it absolutely literally. Others might be more savvy and look for meanings beyond the images. Regardless, how literally or poetically the story was taken did not matter so much. The reality mattered.It is a scientific age that equates literal with real, and metaphor with imaginary. Biblical literalists, heairs to this pattern of thought, display it. Agreed.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Posted a draft.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Accidental early posting of a draft in progress.

---

Archer

arachno: Of course. And well argued. Great post all around. Aiya! The notion that you might be never crossed my mind.I was interested in getting the creative element of it into the picture. Personally, I think everyone who takes interpretation seriously gains from doing extensive creative writing, both fiction and nonfiction. Writing down a narrative of any kind involves choices. It's beneficial for avid readers of any literature to experience that process.I do understand better now your sense of a 'literal' reading. Very helpful. Thanks.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Jor-el: 'Your beliefs'--you mean mine? If so, I'm sorry I overlooked your comment until now.I have no interest in undermining anyone's faith. But it saddens me to learn your faith is so easily threatened.I was discussing Genesis as art. It is art. That is just a fact.What does the word 'Bible' mean? It means book.What's a book? Literature. What's literature? Art.What does the word 'Scripture' mean? It means writing.What's writing? Literature. What's literature? Art.That's the truth. Look it up yourself.Then afterwards, be careful. Defending your idea of 'God's word' against the truth puts you in a strange predicament.It raises the question of whether the deity would approve. Then let me help.The proposed gap falls between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, right?Have you considered the structure of the original Hebrew?Verse 1 is actually a dependent clause. This means that in the original text the first sentence extends into verse 2. It's not two sentences as it appears in the King James.That's why you see recent translations render the opening of Genesis more like this:

[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.

​

Genesis 1.1-3 NRSV
oremus Bible Browser : genesis 1

I hope this is helpful.Incidentally, if you've never heard Haydn's musical setting of this text in his oratorio The Creation, check it out. Unforgettable.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

arachno: Ancient Mesopotamians, I'm told, believed the soul to be located in the bone marrow.If that's correct, Adam's statement 'bone of my bone' would imply 'soul of my soul.'

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

arachnophilia: Yes. Nephesh--closely connected with the idea of Ruach and Neschamah, three different takes on the word breath/wind/spirit. Centuries after Genesis is written, kabbalists will say the human soul consists of three parts and use these three words to describe them. I hope I didn't just repeat an urban legend. I do have that on hearsay, as I indicated. A rabbi--an erudite lady and usually a good source for these things--told me that some years ago. She didn't mean to suggest the association of life with bone marrow was one Judaism had carried forward. More that this is a place where earlier Mesopotamian beliefs leave a trace in the text. She did suggest another passage where traces of this belief may appear: the Torah's rationale for its prohibition on ingesting of animal blood 'for the life of the creature is in the blood.'I am not qualified to say. Just some Bible skuttlebutt for that Worldwide Office Cooler, the Internet.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Jor-el: I'm not talking about guidelines. I'm talking about reality.Truth starts with knowing what you have in your hands. It's literature. I am not discussing the 'merits or demerits.' I am acknowledging reality: a book is literature. Literature is art.Reality has to be factored into the equation no matter what you want to prove. Reality is an essential part of proving anything. Then I'm not sure you respect the Bible as much as you claim.You told me earlier you thought it was 'God's word.' Now you admit you see it as something to use in order to prove something.If you believe the book is from God, why wouldn't you let it talk to you on its own terms--poetry, metaphor, history, surrealism--as the author wants? Why would you dictate to the author that everything you read has to work a science lab report? No nitpick. That comma was what I wanted to show you. Not mine. I have no idea what argument I'm making that you could mean.
It could have implications for your hypothesis, though. But dependent clauses do. Written English uses commas to render them. In the Hebrew the first sentence extends through verse 2, where the subject, 'earth', appears.Here it is again:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

I just thought you'd be interested. Well, of course. I've examined translations and made every effort to understand the Hebrew. But I confess you've got me beat on the Chaldee.Edited by Archer Opterix, : No reason given.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Fixed two typos.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Jor-el: I just shared some information I thought you might find helpful. That's all. I said the Bible is a book. A book is literature. Literature is art.I only called that 'reality' because I thought these things were obvious.I am sorry I was mistaken. I apologize for my inability to communicate more clearly. It was not my desire to be vague. The Bible is a manual, you say?A manual is a book. A book is literature. Literature is art.A manual is just one kind of book. Many kinds of books exist.So how do you know what kind of book you are looking at?You open the book. You read. You let the author's language guide you.

- If you see instructions for putting together a bike, you're probably looking at a bike manual.

​

- If you see a list of names in order of generation, you're probably looking at a genealogy.

​

- If you see talking animals and place names like 'Cliffs of Insanity' and 'Pit of Despair', you're probably looking at a fable.

​

- If you see flowerly language praising eyes, breasts and belly buttons, you're probably looking at a love poem.

Libraries have many kinds of books. For this reason, 'What kind of book am I looking at?' is always a good question to ask.

- If you try to put together a bike by reading a love poem, you will have problems with the bike.

​

- If try to get your spouse in the mood by singing words from a bike manual, you will have problems with your spouse.

Maybe you know a good library where every book is by the same author. Maybe the author is God. 'What kind of book am I looking at?' is still a good question to ask.God can do anything. God can write any kind of book God wants. You want to enjoy each book to the fullest.It would be a shame to use a love poem to put together a bike. The bike won't work, and you'd miss all the beauty of the love poem.That's all I am trying to say.I apologize if this is still vague. I wish you the best--truly--as you explore Genesis further.It's a great book.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.