A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"

This Post was overwritten by accident. It is being re-posted: Destructrion / Reconstruction does not exist for this purpose. It also has been used to portray a much more acceptable view of the history of God’s enemy.The Young Earth expositors complain about “silence” in Genesis about a pre-Adamic rebellion of an arch-angel. Yet many of them insist that in somewhere in the neighberhood of Adam and Eve was a powerful being who in the first week of creation orchestrated the great cosmic warfare against God. I call this the “Brief Rebellion Theory.” It allows only a few days for a creature to convince one third of the heavenly hosts that God should be opposed and His throne usurped. All this is happening concurrent with the first week of creation.To many of us it makes more sense that Satan’s history of opposition to God had a much more ancient origin. Every form of Young Earth interpretation that I have seen so far portrays a very foggy picture of the history of church’s main enemy. Satan seems shrouded in a mist of uncertainty. Yet books like Barnhouse’s “The Invisible War” and Pember’s “Earth's Earliest Ages” strip Satan naked as to his origin and motive.Young Earth expositions often seem more intent on defending a 6,000 year old universe than exposing the enemy of God’s new creation, the church.The book of Revelation shows in addition to the angels a class of being which are the 24 elders on thrones around the throne of the Creator God. Now we should all know that Revelation of Jesus Christ was made known to John “by signs.” So the symbolism should be significant.Who are the 24 elders around the throne of God in Revelation 4 and 5?”And around the throne there were twenty-four thrones, and upon the thrones twenty-four elders sitting clothed in white garments, and upon their heads golden crowns. (Rev. 4:4).

​

The twetny-four elders will fall before Him who sits upon the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever; and they will cast their crowns before the throne saying, You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created” (Rev.4:10,11).Some people say that this is a sign of the elders of the Christian church. I doubt this very much. John was one of the original twelve disciples of Christ. He is not among them but is witness to them. If they are the elders of the Christian church surely the Apostle John, who was called and elder ( 2 John 1:1), should be among them.These elders apparantly represent elders of God’s creation. Of the living beings created by God these elders represent the eldest among them.Now I have no intention to identify them further. The main thing is that these elders furnish a class of beings who are the oldest among God’s created lives. And I submit that from this class of beings one became Satan. I do not say that Satan was one of these 24. I only suggest that this great cosmic enemy of God was a very old being participating in the governmental administration of God’s creation before Adam. These elders have crowns which speak of their ruling authority on behalf of God.Now I could not say that it is impossible that beings created perhaps five days before Adam would be elder to Adam. My opinion is that these elders are more elder than one week. But how long they are elder to Adam I have no idea. But a pre-Adamic era of ruling and crowned angelic beings are suggested here.They apparantly are witnesses of all of God’s creative work. And they know that God has created all things for His will. That means for His purpose and His plan. These elders are close to God and close to the knowledge of the desire of God.I think some being like this and with this authority and knowledge rebelled and became Satan the Devil in ages prior to the creation of man.He was there in the garden when Adam was there. And latter I plan to demonstrate that he existed at the time when God pronounced His creation “very good” in Genesis 1:31.That Satan existed was not very good. But that all things created were under the dominion of Adam - THAT is what was very good. Unfortunately Adam stepped out from under the authority of God and under the illegal authority of Satan against God’s plan. My concern here will be with the theological only.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 08:44 AM

i can honestly say i've never heard of those.although, two seem to be from the 1800's. the english language has had significant change in usage since then. and the other is listed on a cult-watch pages. by other christians, i might add. the surely he would know that the proper way to say "became formless and void" would be היתה לתהו ולבהוit's missing the lamed that say "to-" it doesn't render well in english, but "was to-formless and to-empty." i still don't understand the tense of the verb (not pretending to) but look at how "became" is rendered in 2:7:

quote:

---

וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה

​

v'yehey ha-adam l'nefesh chayah.

​

and-was the-man to-animal living

​

and the man became a living being

---

here it is again in verse 10:

quote:

---

וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים

​

v'hayah l'arba'ah ra'oshym

​

and-is to-four heads

​

and becomes four heads.

---

i've bolded the "become" bits for you. now, how can הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ mean "became shapeless and empty" without the lamed's in front?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-13-2005 02:09 AM

---

אָרַח

Would you please confirm this?

Arachnophilia,If you read and write ancient Hebrew you certainly have my respect. I don't have that skill.The arguments on the linguistic side against Destruction / Reconstruction, as far as I can ascertain with my limited education, are still debated. Arthur Custance was a scholar at a number of ancient languages including Hebrew. And perhaps I will submit some comments from him on your translation issues. But I can't venture further than what technicalities I can somewhat grasp.Custance, probably like yourself, always felt that the debate must be settled on grammatical grounds first. Others feel that the theological argument should be settled first. I am one of the latter opinion. I think the theological case is stronger.Please continue your submissions though.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 08:57 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 08:58 AM

August Dillman, author of Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded translated by W. B. Stevensen Clark, Edinburgh, 1897That is all I have at the moment.F.F. Bruce is a more recent scholar of biblical Hebrew. And although he is not entirely sympathetic to Gap Theory he stated that it could not be cavalierly dismissed on grammatical terms.He remarks this in a Paper in The Transactions of the Victoria Institute."an excessive cavalier dismissal of a view which has been supported by men of the calibre of Pusey, Liddon, etc..."This was written by F.F. Bruce in response to a comment of John Skinner that "This view that verse 1 describes an earlier creation of heaven and earth which was reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned, needs no refutation." (From The International Critical Commentary - Genesis) to which Skinner made submissions.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 09:16 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 09:17 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 09:18 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 09:35 AM

Indeed. And, in the meantime, please respond to the above request for confirmation of Dillman's credentials.

Arachnophilia, Aside from what I offered as proof of some authority in Critical exposition on Genesis I only have these comments from Arthur Custance's book Without Form and Void."“And if there were any question, it would be sufficient for most people who know the meaning of the word ”scholar’ to note that S.R. Driver unhesitatingly recognized Pusey as an authority. It is doubtfulif Driver has an equal as a Hebraist - certainly not, I venture to say, in the matter of the use of the Hebrew verb. And Pusey himslf notes that Dilitzsch, who in earlier editions had argued against his own view, ”subsequently embraced it’. It is also worth noting that another scholar of equal stature with Delitzsch, namely, August Dillman, likewise wrote against the view and subsequently changed his mind - on linquistic grounds alone, In his Commentary on Genesis published in 1897, Dillman renders Gen. 1:2, ”But then was the earth waste, etc.’, and he expresses the view that ”became’ would be incorrect. However, before the two volume work was actually published he had changed his mind, for on page x under Corrigenda, he notes that the above rendering should be altered to read: ”But then the earth became . ’ It was not a matter of indifference to Dillman, therefore, but of sufficient importance to justify two Corrigendum notices. S.R. Driver resisted this translation to the end - even, as we shall see, at the price if a certain inconsistency. But Driver did admit in his The Book of Genesis that it was ”exegetically admissible.’ "Without Form and Void, page 36.S.R. Driver refers to Dillman as an authority in ancient Hebrew grammer in this excerpt from one of his publications sited by Custance:“All that a careful scholar like Mr. Wright (Lectures on the Comparative Grammer of the Semitic Languages, 1890) can bring himself to admit with refenrece to the pluperfect sense of any other construction than that of word order inversion, is that while ”no clear instances can be cited in which it is distinctly so used’, there are cases in which ”something like and approximation to the signification can be detected’. And it is rejected unreservedly by Bottcher, Quarry, Pusey, and Dillman.”Withour Form and Void, page 69F.F. Bruce refers to August Dillman as noteworthy in his agreeing with Bruce on some grammatical matter on Genesis 1:2. I do not have Hebrew fonts on my PC and will leave references to Hebrew characters as blanks.“Of Bruce’s Paper, which was courteous and just at all times, I believe there are, nevertheless, two criticisms of a minor nature that are valid. Bruce refers to Dillman’s Commentary as essentially supporting his own position. However, as we have already noted previously, Dillman apparently changed his mind regarding the correct translation of ___________ in Gen. 1:2. I am sure professor Bruce was unaware of this or did not feel that it altered Dillman’s basic position, for in spite of his later admission I do not think that he wholeheartedly acceeded to the idea of a gap between verse 1 and 2. This fact makes Dillman’s admission as to the meaning of _________ in verse 2 all the more significant and in a very real sense nullifies the basis of Bruce’s appeal to Dillman for support - at least, in so far as verse 2 is concerned.”Without Form and Void, page 94This is all I can present to you at the moment for my assumption that August Dillman was a Hebrew translator of note among peers in that discipline.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 10:45 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 10:47 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 10:48 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 10:51 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 10:52 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 10:57 AM

Forgive me, jaywill, but I continue to struggle with your claim that ... ... in suport of which you now offer the following:

quote:

---

And if there were any question, it would be sufficient for most people who know the meaning of the word ”scholar’ to note that S.R. Driver unhesitatingly recognized Pusey as an authority. It is doubtfulif Driver has an equal as a Hebraist - certainly not, I venture to say, in the matter of the use of the Hebrew verb. And Pusey himslf notes that Dilitzsch, who in earlier editions had argued against his own view, ”subsequently embraced it’. It is also worth noting that another scholar of equal stature with Delitzsch, namely, August Dillman, likewise wrote against the view and subsequently changed his mind - on linquistic grounds alone, In his Commentary on Genesis published in 1897, Dillman renders Gen. 1:2, ”But then was the earth waste, etc.’, and he expresses the view that ”became’ would be incorrect. However, before the two volume work was actually published he had changed his mind, for on page x under Corrigenda, he notes that the above rendering should be altered to read: ”But then the earth became . ’ It was not a matter of indifference to Dillman, therefore, but of sufficient importance to justify two Corrigendum notices. S.R. Driver resisted this translation to the end - even, as we shall see, at the price if a certain inconsistency. But Driver did admit in his The Book of Genesis that it was ”exegetically admissible.’

---

So, what does this tell us? Apparently ...

1. Driver [not Dillman] was a recognized Hebraist who
2. unhesitatingly recognized Pusey as an authority - although of what we are not told.
3. Pusey notes that Dilitzsch [not Dillman], who had argued against his view, ”subsequently embraced it’.
4. another scholar of equal stature with Delitzsch, namely, August Dillman, likewise wrote against the view and subsequently changed his mind - on linquistic grounds alone.

I see nothing here to suggest that Dillman was a Hebraist of note. Perhaps sesnsing that you had not yet validated your claim, you then offered ... But here too we see nothing to substantiate your claim. I am more than willing to grant Dillmann's credentials when it comes to the South Semitic Ethiopic grammar, but that would hardly make him an expert in Biblical Hebrew. One might just as reasonably rely on an Icelandic grammarian as an expert on Bergundian.May I ask why you simply disregard modern Torah translations of Genesis 1?This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-13-2005 12:18 PM

ConsequentAthiest There is nothing sneaky going on CA. I simply went to the back of the book and quoted every instance where Dillman was discussed in the book. Naturally I quoted as much as I thought presented the context in which various supposed experts were related in a peer relationship.If I don't have his bio what else should I do?If you are not satisfied with these references as an indication of his authority to discuss Hebrew Grammer then don't receive him.I do not think the entire matter of whether there was an Interval of unspecified time rests solely on whether the English reads "became waste... etc" or "was waste ..." I don't disregard any modern translation except I might not take too seriously one which is obviously a very loose paraphrase.Quote the rendering that you suggest that I consult please.My favorite version of the Bible has "became" there but that is atypical.The Emphasized Bible reads " had become" and it is a very grammatically notated technical version. The inside page reads:The EMPHASIZED BIBLE -A Translation Designed to set Forth the Exact Meaning, The Proper Terminology, and the Graphic Style of the Sacred OriginalBy Joseph Bryant RotherhamRotherham's note on toho wa - vohu reads "Evidently an idiomatic phrase, with a play on the sound ("assonance"). The two words occur together in Is. XXXIV.11; Jer. IV.23: examples which favour the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow. Tohu by itself is found in several other texts (Deu. XXXII.10; Job XII.24; Ps. CVII.40; Is XXIV.10; XXXIV.11; etc.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 01:50 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 01:51 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 01:52 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 01:53 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 01:54 PM

My options are obvious. Your action seems less so. I am trying to determine how you arrived at your evaluation of Mr. Dillmann based solely on your references. I'm suggesting that you may have read into the text what you wanted to hear and, if so, that it might be a tendency worth noting and correcting. I began a somewhat long thread on Genesis 1:1-3. While I find Alter poetically pleasing, I am more than satisfied with either Etz Hayim or the new JPS.This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-13-2005 02:44 PM

CA, That is true. I assume that the discussion in the book included Dillman as someone of note on opinions of translation of Genesis. I agree.Now do you do the same by concluding that he only has the right to weigh in on things pertaining to Coptic Ethiopian versions of Genesis? I have seen some of that thread and read some of it. I have not read it all but want to go back and do so. Thanks for your considerable labors there. I will get to read more of it.I think Custance did refer to one translation you sited of Genesis 1:1 in his book. (If I am thinking of "in the beginning of God's creating ...?"). Something like that you wrote?Now I am going to continue with Apostle's comments if I might for now.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 02:57 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 02:58 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 03:00 PM

I would comment here that the scope of the phrase ”the world” is key.Let’s look at the matter of sin. Romans 5:12 says that through one man Adam sin came into the world. But I would ask was the lie of the being who deceived Eve a sin? The serpent directly contradicted the word of God that she would die. If that lie was a sin then sin was somewhere in the universe if not in ”the world” yet through Adam.We know from the rest of the Bible that Satan has his legions of evil angels. Where were they when Eve was being deceived. If they were not in the world they were somewhere. There had to be sin somewhere before there could be a Satanic spirit.It is interesting that when God looks on the things He made it records that He saw that it was good, except no such pronouncement is made about the upper firmament:1.) ”And God saw that the light was good . ” (verse 3 on Day #1)
2.) “And God called the expanse heaven . ” (verse 8 on Day #2)
3.) “ Seas; and God saw that it was good” (verse 10 on Day #3)
4.) “seed in them . and God saw that it was good” (verse 12 on Day #3)
5.) “light... and God saw that it was good” (verse 18 on Day #4)
6.) “every - animal;God saw that it was good” (verse 21 on Day #5)
7.) “cattle . and God saw that it was good” (verse 25 on Day #6)
8.) “everything that He had made,..very good” (verse 31 on Day #6)Notice that on everyday of the six days except the second day, God saw something that was good. Only concerning the spatial air above the earth does it not say that He saw that it was good.Now this could be insignificant or a coincidence. Or it could be an indication that something about the air above the earth was not altogether good.Satan is called ”the ruler of the authority of the air, . the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2).An unemployed Satan and his unemployed legions of evil angels were probably in the air. They were deprived of their principality in the pre-Adamic age. And they were sullenly looking on to see how God would commit the earth to this new dusty creation man. I believe that for the serpent to be in the garden opposing God with a slanderous lie indicates that the Devil and his hosts were lurking nearby in the air. This may explain why God withheld the pronouncement on Day #2 that He saw that the firmament of the air was good.If Satan and his legions had previously sinned then sin was lurking nearby already though it had not yet entered the world through Adam until he too fell to its temptation. So the scope of the phrase ”into the world” must be considered in Romans 5:12.Now what about death? I would not resort to scientific evidences of ancient death. But I would ask those who say no death could be in the world before Adam's disobedience to explain the pitch in Genesis 6:14.”Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make rooms in the ark and shall cover it within and without with pitch”I am told that the tarish pitch is related to fossil fuels. This is an indication of death and decay. Since this pitch was to coat the ark it was found in the ground prior to the great flood. Could this not then argue for an indication that death and decay was present at some ancient time on the planet?So the world into which Adam permitted sin to enter, has its scope. It may not include all previous ages. And the sinful acts of Satan to seduce man indicate that sin was in existence somewhere close enough to lurk for an opportunity to flood into Adam’s world.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 03:06 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 03:10 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 03:12 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-13-2005 03:13 PM

My goodness! Where have I ever said anything remotely suggestive of such a position?This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-13-2005 03:30 PM

well, i don't mean to be dishonest here. i don't either. i know a little bit of modern hebrew which is somewhat different than biblical hebrew. i can puzzle out a few things here and there -- but like i said, i have no idea what the tense of that verb is.also, the bible is not written in ancient hebrew. it's written in biblical hebrew. ancienct hebrew is very, very different, and disappeared about the time of the exile in babylon. when the jews returned, they adopted a more aramaic-influenced script and dialect, and designed that blocky-style we see today. i follow the strict judaic PaRDeS tradition. the literal is the foundation on which all interpretation should be based. i think trying to force the literal into a prefered reading is dishonest.but this is a fairly basic grammatical issue. if i wanted to indicate a change, i'd say m'something l'something. from-something to-something. without even the to- bit, i fail to see how it's indicating a change.maybe it's in the verb tense -- see if you can find something on that.

---

אָרַח

Herepten,I am sorry that I have not had time yet to respond to what was a very interesting post from you. I hope you can submit other insights. That was a pretty fresh way of putting the matter.