The Gap theory

[abelcainsbrother]

OK but I did not say multiple generations,I only said the phrase "These are the generations" and you can disagree with this translation however you must admit that if it is "These are the generations"and it is right? It means the earth is old

Actually I have no problem with "these are the generations" as long as you understand which definition of the English word 'generations' is meant by the Hebrew 'toledoth'.

If you define the English word 'generations' as 'things generated from' then I think that 'generations' is a perfectly good word to use for 'toledoth' in Genesis 2:4, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 6:9.
However, I am an 'old earther', and as an 'old earther' I would not try to use the Hebrew word 'toledoth' as a Scriptural proof for an old earth.
Again the meaning of the word 'toledoth' in Genesis 2:4, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 6:9 is a reference to things proceeding from or things being 'generated' from.

It is also like how they changed replenish to fill just so that it does not show evidence of former life which would mean an old earth

This is one that the KJV translators just flat out got wrong.

Hebrew 'male' does not mean 'replenish'... it means fill.
That is why the newer translations of the Bible use 'fill' instead of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28.
And the NKJV even corrects this error in the KJV.

And just so you don't think that all these modern translations are just a conspiracy against the Gap Theory. 200 years before the time of Christ, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) translated the Hebrew 'male' in Genesis 1:28 into the Greek 'pleroo'.

Care to guess what Greek 'pleroo' means?
You guessed it... "to make full, to complete"

So in the case of the Hebrew 'male', the KJV English translation of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28 is the anomaly.
The KJV translators just blew it on this one.

In Christ

If that is true about replenish meaning to fill? Then explain why replenish makes more sense when God told Noah,his sons and their wives to replenish the earth? Read about Noah's flood because only 8 people survived it which is why replenish makes more sense. I have read the arguments for replenish meaning fill and they are weak reasons imo. It is changing God's word in order to get the translation they prefer.

I see we are not going to agree about this but I have given you atleast 3 examples of ways we can know not only the earth is old but also how we can know life had been created by God before he created and made life for this world.

I showed you the difference between "bara" and "asah" and how important it is to know the difference between them Genesis 2:2-4 in order to understand what Genesis 1 and the whole OT are telling us and how this shows the earth is old,then I brought up how God both created(bara) and made(asah) life for this world and how it points to former life which means the earth is old,then I brought up how God both created and made life "after its kind",after his kind,according to their kind and showed even more about how it shows God had already created life before and the earth is old,then I brought up replenish and yet you explain all of these away based on a translation you prefer in order to hold to your interpretation.

I have given atleast four reasons how we know the earth is old and life had already been created before and how it also shows the earth is old and imo you are explaining away all four examples I gave in order to still hold to your interpretation.

I could give even more examples and reasons we can know the earth is old and there was life God created before he created and made life for this world but I was trying to stay just in Genesis 1 in order to make my points about an old earth and prior life but I don't think I will for now.
Here check this out.


In one sense it matters not whether 'replenish' means to refill. However, if God truly asked Adam to replenish,that is, to restore the earth to its former fullness, then the entire theory of a 6-7,000 year old earth is blown apart.
In other words, to hang on to his ''theory'', a YEC must insist that Genesis 1:28 means fill, NOT refill.
Replenish.
Maybe one of the greatest bugbears for Young Earth Creationists, is the use of the word “replenish” in the King James Bible, for it's one of the very few versions to record God's instruction to Adam to multiply and replenish the earth. Virtually without exception, all other . versions use the word “fill.”
Genesis 1:28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, …..
Of course, something has to be “filled” in order for it to be replenished, but the word replenish can never mean fill for the first time. It can only mean fill, in the sense of restoring a thing to its former fullness. In an attempt to ''prove'' otherwise, one well known Christian Ministry website states:
The word replenish meant to Fill....nothing more.... According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of the word replenish to mean “to fill again” occurred in 1612, one year after the King James Version was published.” To replenish: make full, fill, stock with, as in: ‘This man made the Newe Forest, and replenyshed it with wylde bestes’ (AD1494)
However, this claim is based upon the assumption that the New Forest in S.W England was literally new in 1494, and that assumption contradicts their own argument. Like much of England, the site of the New Forest was once deciduous woodland, recolonised by birch and eventually beech and oak following the withdrawal of the ice sheets starting around 12,000 years ago.
The man in question almost certainly refers to William the Conqueror, but the forest couldn't possibly have been filled with animals for the first time, for the entire area had consisted of heath and woodland for thousands of years beforehand. Heath and woodland abound with wildlife. Rather than create a ''new'' forest, the king had much of the original woodland cleared, and replenished or re-stocked the area with game.
The New Forest was designated as a royal forest by William I in about 1079 for the royal hunt, mainly of DEER. It was created at the expense of more than 20 small hamlets and isolated farmsteads; hence it was 'new' in his time as a single compact area.[Credit: wikipedia.]
Therefore in 1494 the New Forest was ''replenyshed'' or restocked with animals, not filled for the first time.
I'm not criticizing other Bible-believing Christians, but making the point how we can each allow our theology to determine our understanding of Scripture at times. If one's theology dictates that life had never existed before the creation of Adam, then the earth is likely to be a mere 6,000 years old, and the men who translated the KJB simply used the wrong choice of word.
On the other hand, if one accepts that ''replenish'' can never mean fill for the first time, then by rights the KJB should determine our theology to accept that life of some kind had inhabited the earth prior to the six days of Genesis

[DBowling]

If that is true about replenish meaning to fill? Then explain why replenish makes more sense when God told Noah,his sons and their wives to replenish the earth?

'male' in Genesis 9:1 means the very same thing it does in Genesis 1:28... to fill.
And the NKJV has corrected this translation error in Genesis 9:1 as well as Genesis 1:28.

I have read the arguments for replenish meaning fill and they are weak reasons imo. It is changing God's word in order to get the translation they prefer.

The reason certain people [basically people who prefer the KJV] claim that in 1828 'replenish' meant fill is not because they want to change God's Word... it's because they want to defend the integrity of the KJV translation.
They know that 'male' means fill. (ie what God's Word says)
They know that the KJV says 'replenish' (ie not what God's Word says)
So in order to defend the KJV translators they go back to 1828 English dictionaries to show that in 1828 the English word 'replenish' meant 'to fill.
This way the KJV defenders can claim that translating 'male'/fill as 'replenish' wasn't a mistake after all, because 'replenish' actually meant 'to fill' in 1828 English.

I see we are not going to agree about this but I have given you atleast 3 examples of ways we can know not only the earth is old but also how we can know life had been created by God before he created and made life for this world.

You have not yet sited a single Scripture that claims that life was created or made before Genesis 1:2.
You have not yet sited a single Scripture that claims that life even existed before Genesis 1:2.

The difference or interchangeability of bara and asah, does not change the fact there is no Scripture that explicitly or even implicitly claims that life existed prior to Genesis 1:2.

The appeal to a known mistranslation ['replenish' in Genesis 1:28] is yet another demonstration of how The Gap Theory tradition is not supported by Scripture.

In Christ

[abelcainsbrother]

If that is true about replenish meaning to fill? Then explain why replenish makes more sense when God told Noah,his sons and their wives to replenish the earth?

'male' in Genesis 9:1 means the very same thing it does in Genesis 1:28... to fill.
And the NKJV has corrected this translation error in Genesis 9:1 as well as Genesis 1:28.

I have read the arguments for replenish meaning fill and they are weak reasons imo. It is changing God's word in order to get the translation they prefer.

The reason certain people [basically people who prefer the KJV] claim that in 1828 'replenish' meant fill is not because they want to change God's Word... it's because they want to defend the integrity of the KJV translation.
They know that 'male' means fill. (ie what God's Word says)
They know that the KJV says 'replenish' (ie not what God's Word says)
So in order to defend the KJV translators they go back to 1828 English dictionaries to show that in 1828 the English word 'replenish' meant 'to fill.
This way the KJV defenders can claim that translating 'male'/fill as 'replenish' wasn't a mistake after all, because 'replenish' actually meant 'to fill' in 1828 English.

I see we are not going to agree about this but I have given you atleast 3 examples of ways we can know not only the earth is old but also how we can know life had been created by God before he created and made life for this world.

You have not yet sited a single Scripture that claims that life was created or made before Genesis 1:2.
You have not yet sited a single Scripture that claims that life even existed before Genesis 1:2.

The difference or interchangeability of bara and asah, does not change the fact there is no Scripture that explicitly or even implicitly claims that life existed prior to Genesis 1:2.

The appeal to a known mistranslation ['replenish' in Genesis 1:28] is yet another demonstration of how The Gap Theory tradition is not supported by Scripture.

In Christ

I have already given atleast 4 examples and reasons for how we know the earth is old and that life was created before God created and made life for his world in Genesis 1. You ask me where in God word does it say God created life before Genesis 1:2?and when I give you reasons and examples you seem to go by a certian translation that agrees with your interpretation in order to explain away my examples and ways we know God did. I cannot change your mind. I can only lay out the evidence and reasons why the bible teaches the earth is old and life was created before Genesis 1:2.

You may say I'm hiding behind a translation I prefer but I've showed you from the Hebrew also not just the english translation. Despite what you claim I know that you cannot show anywhere in the OT where "bara" and "asah" are interchangable and yet you somehow think Genesis 1:26-27 but they are not interchangable at all in them verses because when God said "Let us make man in our image" it means this kind of life had already been created before but because God created them they were new creations just like anywhere in the OT you see the word created,it is always something new.

They were new creations when God created male and female,they had never been created before. And it is the same anywhere else in the OT now I know you said you pretty much can agree they are not interchangable but just in case I've showed you they are not. Created always means it is a new creation and made never does.

I think this is important to Day Agers too because they teach Genesis 1:1 means it was created ex nihilo in Genesis 1:1 and we agree with this and it means it was new just like when God created animals,etc and man but not when he made things in Genesis 1 or anywhere in the OT. Thanks for the discussion.

[DBowling]

I have already given atleast 4 examples and reasons for how we know the earth is old and that life was created before God created and made life for his world in Genesis 1. You ask me where in God word does it say God created life before Genesis 1:2?and when I give you reasons and examples you seem to go by a certian translation that agrees with your interpretation in order to explain away my examples and ways we know God did. I cannot change your mind. I can only lay out the evidence and reasons why the bible teaches the earth is old and life was created before Genesis 1:2.

Let's try this then...
Just list the references of the Scriptures that you think claim that life was created before Genesis 1:2.
No explanations, just the references.
Let's see what the Scriptures you list say without any editorial comments.

when God said "Let us make man in our image" it means this kind of life had already been created before

That is incorrect...
asah does not mean or imply that the item being made had already been made at some earlier time.
asah can mean that something was made out of preexisting matterials.

If I am going to make/asah a cake that does not mean that I am making the cake out of a preexisting cake.
If I make/asah a cake I am making the cake out of other preexisting materials such as flour, butter, sugar, etc.

Asserting that asah implies that the item being made preexisted at some time in its final form is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Hebrew word asah means.

Created always means it is a new creation and made never does.

wrong... wrong... wrong... wrong... wrong!!
Bara can (but does not necessarily have to) mean that the item being formed was formed out of nothing.
Asah can (but does not necessarily have to) mean that the item being formed was formed out of preexisting materials.
You are just factually incorrect on this one...

I think your best bet is to just go back to Scripture. When you depend on mistranslations of 'male' or misunderstandings of 'bara' and 'asah' to support a man made theory, that is a clue that the theory in question is not consistent with Scripture.

In Christ

[abelcainsbrother]

I have already given atleast 4 examples and reasons for how we know the earth is old and that life was created before God created and made life for his world in Genesis 1. You ask me where in God word does it say God created life before Genesis 1:2?and when I give you reasons and examples you seem to go by a certian translation that agrees with your interpretation in order to explain away my examples and ways we know God did. I cannot change your mind. I can only lay out the evidence and reasons why the bible teaches the earth is old and life was created before Genesis 1:2.

Let's try this then...
Just list the references of the Scriptures that you think claim that life was created before Genesis 1:2.
No explanations, just the references.
Let's see what the Scriptures you list say without any editorial comments.

when God said "Let us make man in our image" it means this kind of life had already been created before

That is incorrect...
asah does not mean or imply that the item being made had already been made at some earlier time.
asah can mean that something was made out of preexisting matterials.

If I am going to make/asah a cake that does not mean that I am making the cake out of a preexisting cake.
If I make/asah a cake I am making the cake out of other preexisting materials such as flour, butter, sugar, etc.

Asserting that asah implies that the item being made preexisted at some time in its final form is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Hebrew word asah means.

Created always means it is a new creation and made never does.

wrong... wrong... wrong... wrong... wrong!!
Bara can (but does not necessarily have to) mean that the item being formed was formed out of nothing.
Asah can (but does not necessarily have to) mean that the item being formed was formed out of preexisting materials.
You are just factually incorrect on this one...

I think your best bet is to just go back to Scripture. When you depend on mistranslations of 'male' or misunderstandings of 'bara' and 'asah' to support a man made theory, that is a clue that the theory in question is not consistent with Scripture.

In Christ

Yes it does. Everytime asah is used it is always something that had already been created before,everywhere in Genesis 1 or the OT where you see asah or made it is always something that had already been created before. So how can you say it does'nt apply in Genesis 1:26-27?

Just like when it says "And God MADE two great lights;the greater light to rule the day,and the lesser light to rule the night:He made the stars also." they had already been created before,everywhere you see made it is always something that had already been created before and it means the same thing in Genesis 1:26-27 and anywhere else we see it in the OT.

This means in this verse "And God said,Let us make man in our image" it means it had already been created before however it says"So God created man in his own image,in the image of God created he him;male and female created he them." They were new creations that had never been created before.

This is why Gap Theorists were talking about former life and a pre-Adamite race long before they were ever discovered in the earth and long before modern science which is why when modern science started discovering them in the late 1700's and early 1800's in the earth the Gap Theory was revived at the time and became very popular in the Christian church and remained popular up until about the 1970's did it start to lose popularity. Of course evolutionists think they are related to man and evolved into man but God's word says they are not related and they could not have evolved into man.They are not interchangable.

[RickD]

Asah generally means to make something out of pre existing material.

It doesn't mean to make something that was created before.

God made(asah) Adam from the dust of the earth(preexisting materials).

Not, God made(asah) Adam who preexisted.

You're stretching the text to make it mean what you want it to mean.

[abelcainsbrother]

Asah generally means to make something out of pre existing material.

It doesn't mean to make something that was created before.

God made(asah) Adam from the dust of the earth(preexisting materials).

Not, God made(asah) Adam who preexisted.

You're stretching the text to make it mean what you want it to mean.

I'm being technical with the Hebrew you can say asah means making something out of pre-existing materials and that would be acceptable and this is how most explain it and my point still stands even if you think of pre-existing material but it is also right to say that when we see asah it means something that had already been created new before also,it also means to do work on something,to move something also. Some have pointed out that when it says "He made the stars also" some have said God could have moved them back into position.Both are right and acceptable based on the definitions I gave.

[DBowling]

Everytime asah is used it is always something that had already been created before,everywhere in Genesis 1 or the OT where you see asah or made it is always something that had already been created before.

As I pointed out above (in retrospect, probably with too much... intensity... sorry about that)
That is a factually untrue statement.
I would like to know which Hebrew "expert" is the source for that inaccurate assertion.

In Christ

[DBowling]

I'm being technical with the Hebrew you can say asah means making something out of pre-existing materials and that would be acceptable and this is how most explain it and my point still stands even if you think of pre-existing material but it is also right to say that when we see asah it means something that had already been created new before also,it also means to do work on something,to move something also. Some have pointed out that when it says "He made the stars also" some have said God could have moved them back into position.Both are right and acceptable based on the definitions I gave.

OK let's give credit where credit is due... this is a bit closer to the real meaning of 'asah'.
In your statement above you acknowledge that asah could mean
a. making something out of pre-existing materials
b. to do work on something
c. to move something

When you acknowledge these multiple Scriptural meanings of the word asah, that directly contradicts your statement that
"Everytime asah is used it is always something that had already been created before"

In Christ

[abelcainsbrother]

Everytime asah is used it is always something that had already been created before,everywhere in Genesis 1 or the OT where you see asah or made it is always something that had already been created before.

As I pointed out above (in retrospect, probably with too much... intensity... sorry about that)
That is a factually untrue statement.
I would like to know which Hebrew "expert" is the source for that inaccurate assertion.

In Christ

Show me in the OT where it is wrong. Show me anywhere in the OT where made is not talking about something that had already been created new before, asah means to work on something,to move something and in every place where made is, this is true,it is always something that had already been created new before. This is why we say it points to former life when we see where God made life.It was new life when God created life though.

Why should I tell you what hebrew "expert" said this? You can check it yourself.I mean critics often claim Gap Theorists have made it up about bara and asah,are adding to the text,adding things to God's word in order to insert millions of years,etc. And yet when I've looked into it and examined it? It was the critics that were wrong. I'm not being mean or disrespectful to anybody over this or trying to show too much intensity also. And I apologize to you if it sometimes seemed that way. I'm just trying to show why I believe this is the right interpretation and I'm not mad or being disrespectful about it.

[DBowling]

Show me in the OT where it is wrong. Show me anywhere in the OT where made is not talking about something that had already been created new before

That's easy... anywhere 'asah' is used in Genesis 1 is a good place to start.

In Christ

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm being technical with the Hebrew you can say asah means making something out of pre-existing materials and that would be acceptable and this is how most explain it and my point still stands even if you think of pre-existing material but it is also right to say that when we see asah it means something that had already been created new before also,it also means to do work on something,to move something also. Some have pointed out that when it says "He made the stars also" some have said God could have moved them back into position.Both are right and acceptable based on the definitions I gave.

OK let's give credit where credit is due... this is a bit closer to the real meaning of 'asah'.
In your statement above you acknowledge that asah could mean
a. making something out of pre-existing materials
b. to do work on something
c. to move something

When you acknowledge these multiple Scriptural meanings of the word asah, that directly contradicts your statement that
"Everytime asah is used it is always something that had already been created before"

In Christ

Not in context of what the text is talking about. Let me give you an example "He MADE the stars also" We could say God worked on pre-existing material,we could say God moved them and because they were not created we know they are not new and they had already been created before. However when it comes to life God made we know God made life to exist out of pre-existing msterials,he worked on something that had already been created before but because this is life he had to make it live so he made life based on former life that had aready been created before this is why "after its kind,according to their kind matters in the text which I tried to explain to you.

[RickD]

I'm being technical with the Hebrew you can say asah means making something out of pre-existing materials and that would be acceptable and this is how most explain it and my point still stands even if you think of pre-existing material but it is also right to say that when we see asah it means something that had already been created new before also,it also means to do work on something,to move something also. Some have pointed out that when it says "He made the stars also" some have said God could have moved them back into position.Both are right and acceptable based on the definitions I gave.

OK let's give credit where credit is due... this is a bit closer to the real meaning of 'asah'.
In your statement above you acknowledge that asah could mean
a. making something out of pre-existing materials
b. to do work on something
c. to move something

When you acknowledge these multiple Scriptural meanings of the word asah, that directly contradicts your statement that
"Everytime asah is used it is always something that had already been created before"

In Christ

Not in context of what the text is talking about. Let me give you an example "He MADE the stars also" We could say God worked on pre-existing material,we could say God moved them and because they were not created we know they are not new and they had already been created before. However when it comes to life God made we know God made life to exist out of pre-existing msterials,he worked on something that had already been created before but because this is life he had to make it live so he made life based on former life that had aready been created before this is why "after its kind,according to their kind matters in the text which I tried to explain to you.

ACB,

Where are you getting this from? Do you have a link to someone who says this?

And, I'd also like you to show a Hebrew expert who says that every time asah is used, it is always something that has been created before.

I'd like to see where you got this from, so I can try to understand why the person thinks it's correct.

[Philip]

What is being asserted here by ACB, evidence-wise, is truly as obscure, unprovable and dubious as about anything I've ever seen argued here on G&S. So, I see this, plus the fact that he apparently sees this "former world" stuff so important because he thinks it will make people realize evolution is false / be more likely to believe the Bible is true. But he has spent vast pages of posts without even convincing any of the theologically knowledgeable here of it's potential, much less it's certainty. He's also ignoring a vast host of scholars and Hebrew and Greek scholars and linguists. Now, ACB, when are you going to realize, even if you think GAP Theory to be true, that 1) it is NEVER going to convince theologically knowledgeable Christians, 2) much less unbelievers, and 3) it's certainly not going to change the minds of those who buy into evolution - many whom are already Christians who see various Creation verbiage as merely symbolic or allegorical. So, as others have redundantly and very patiently pointed out, that while your energy and enthusiasm are admirable, there is just NO way that this obscure issue is worth near the effort that has been put into it.

Really, this has carried on to a cartoonish level! I think everyone should sum up their arguments and the thread should be locked. This has become an enormous distraction when there are FAR more important issues to be discussed. I don't think ACB is going to convince anyone, and I also don't think anyone will ever convince ACB that he is wrong. As for future discussions on it, I can't imagine there has been a point not brought up, and REDUNDANTLY so!

[RickD]

Philip,

While I see what you're saying, I'm kinda enjoying what DBowling has put forth. He's done his research, and he makes some really good points. I think anyone reading the thread can learn from this.

I tend to agree that nobody who has posted here so far, is going to change anyone else's mind. But, it's a good thread to learn more, IMO, about why the Gap Theory really isn't a tenable creation stance, scripturally.