Debunking The Anti-Gap "Grammatical Argument"

[jalvarez4Jesus]

It is often alleged that there cannot be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 because the Hebrew won't allow it. The KJV translates it as follows:

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 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." (Genesis 1:1-2).

Simply going by the plain English, and comparing the rest of the chapter's "and"s (just take a look), it becomes plain that verse 2 is chronologically after verse 1. Which means verse 2 cannot possibly be describing the exact same moment as verse 1. There must be a gap, and whether it is by 4 seconds or 4 billion years is your preference. BUT THE HEBREW SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT!, allege the anti-gap theorists. Well, let's put that old argument to rest.

The Hebrew WAW which begins verse 2 (translated as "AND" in the KJV) is a WAW-Disjuntive, not a WAW-Consecutive. It is often claimed that for this reason, verse 2 is merely describing the condition of verse 1, not the condition of the earth afterwards. But that isn't the only way to interpret a WAW-Disjuntive. Respected Linguistic Scholar Bill Mounce has an online paper describing the WAW-Disjuntive (here it is: http://hebrew.billmounce.com/BasicsBibl ... rew-23.pdf). To quote him:

The disjunctive Waw may be used in a number of different ways. Four of the major uses are:
(1) parenthetical,
(2) circumstantial,
(3) contrastive
(4) introductory.

Anti-Gap theorists act as if the circumstantial sense is the only possible meaning in Genesis 1:2, and thus opt for versions which remove "and" altogether (e.g. NASB). BUT what if it's something else? The contrastive sense (BUT) is also very possible for Genesis 1:2. It would read like this then:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 BUT the earth was without form and void...

The contrast would imply to a Hebrew reader that God made the heaven and earth, BUT something happened to it to make it without form and void. This would imply a gap and that verse 2 happens chronologically after verse 1. This turns out to be the correct interpretation when one considers other scriptures which describe this event, "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger." (Jeremiah 4:23-26). God destroyed the earth after the beginning (verse 1), so that it was without form and void in verse 2. God made the world, BUT something happened to it, God destroyed it. It was without form and void.

BUT WAIT, NO JEW WOULD THINK THAT!!!, you say. The Jewish Josephus thought it was talking in the contrastive sense (BUT), "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; BUT WHEN the earth did not come into sight, BUT WAS covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light;" (William Whiston, A.M., The Works of Josephus, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 2016)). The LXX Greek translation of the Old Testament thought it was talking about that as well. It translates the WAW-Disjuntive as "δὲ" which means "BUT" in English! This evidence points to the fact that it is entirely possible (and absolutely certain when comparing Genesis 1 with Jeremiah 4) to translate the WAW-Disjuntive here in the contrastive sense. God created the world, BUT something happened to it. This in itself implies a gap of time wherein the earth became without form and void.

Now, to English. If that's what it means, why doesn't the KJV just translate it as "BUT the earth was without form, and void..."? Because if it did, it would for an English speaker imply not a gap, but something more blasphemous. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. BUT the earth was without form, and void..." would at first seem to imply not that after God made the world something happened to it, but rather than WHEN God made the world, he did a poor job at it, it was without form and void. That is blasphemous and doesn't convey what the Hebrew is conveying. Thus, "AND" is a perfect substitute. It implies as the Hebrew does that this event comes chronologically after the creation and is a contrast to the original creation in verse 1.

Whether you're using the Hebrew or just sticking with an English KJV, you'll get the same meaning. Verse 2 happens chronologically AFTER verse 1. Whether or not you want that gap to be four seconds or four billion years, again, is your preference. But there can be no doubt that it is implying a gap.

EDIT: Another possibility is that it could be in the introductory sense: "In this use, the disjunctive Waw may begin a new narrative or introduce a new idea or theme within a narrative." ~ Bill Mounce. Jeremiah 4 makes it clear that the Genesis 1:2 earth was destroyed because of sin. God didn't destroy the earth by creating it in verse 1 (duh). Thus, according to Jeremiah 4, Genesis 1:2 happened after Genesis 1:1. Which means that the Waw-Disjunctive is probably just in the introductory sense to begin a new narrative in Genesis 1:2 that started after Genesis 1:1. Regardless, there's still a gap here either way.

[Jac3510]

I'm going to offer this one and on this one post explaining why the above is foolish. THIS is why no one should waste their time with "I-learned-Greek/Hebrew-on-the-internet" garbage. It's clear J4J doesn't understand what he's reading. Regardless of the semantic classification of the waw-disjunctive that begins Gen 1:2, none of them permit a temporal gap of any kind between the two verses. The semantic classification simply tells us more about the kind of disjunction. But disjunctions, by their nature, necessarily and always demonstrate a non-temporal relation between the two ideas being connected. It is clear the disjunctive waw in 1:2 is being used circumstantially. But even if we permitted a contrastive use (which j4j seems to favor above), there is still no "gap" between the two verses. Such a usage compares two presently existing circumstances. So in the example Mounce uses, God looked at Abel's sacrifice favorably BUT (disjunctive waw) disapprovingly on Cain's. There is no gap between those. It's comparing ("contrasting") two realities. Of course, it's obvious that there is no contrast between 1:1 and 1:2--the way it is existing is not being contrasted to the fact that it exists. That's just not the way the disjunctive works.

Look, if you want to move the story forward temporally, in Hebrew, you use the waw consecutive. That's just what you do. You can imply a waw consecutive if you like, but that's just how you do it. Put another way, if you want clause B to have a temporal relation to clause A (where that temporal relation is one of advancement), the tool by which you do that in Hebrew is the waw-consecutive. That's an important point to know when you get into Hebrew discourse grammar. You have main-line verbs and off-line verbs. Main line verbs are those independent clauses and tend to be at the beginning of the sentence and usually marked off with a waw-consecutive. Off-line verbs tell us something about the main line verb itself or the clause the main-line verb is governing and are usually marked off with a waw-disjunctive. They are not temporlaly related. They are circumstantially or parenthetically related, or else they introduce an idea or show some contrast. To go back to the Can/Abel example, there is a good theological reason to use the disjunctive. The main line verb is that God looked favorably on Abel's sacrifice. The contrasting idea, that God did not approve of Cain's, sets up the motivation for Cain's murder, but even more it highlights the nature of Cain's sin. Observe:

1. Abel offers a sacrifice
2. God approves of Abel's sacrifice
3. Cain becomes angry
4. Cain kills Abel

When you trace the main line actions you see that's the movement of the story. And when the movement is so traced, you see the nature of Cain's sin much more clearly. If Moses had set off Cain's sacrifice with a main-line, temporally connected verb, he would have obscurred the very theological point he's trying to make--a point driven home by God's own warning of the danger that CAIN was in (not the danger Abel was in)! In fact, all of this grammar highlights God's warning. It's beautifully composed. Moses was one heck of a storyteller. And that's because he understood how the way-disjunctive works.

J4J doesn't understand how it works. There is, again, no way that there can be a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. The two verses are connected via a waw-disjunctive and not a waw-consecutive. That means the verses are NON-TEMPORALLY related. That means they are CONCEPTUALLY related. And the only concept that makes sense is that of circumstnace. Verse 2 tells us something about the circumstances regarding the action of 1:1. God creates the earth, and the resulting creation was 1) formless and void, 2) shrouded in darkness, and 3) under God's loving protection. In other words, the initial creation was chaotic, and yet God was present in it bringing order to the chaos. And THAT is the theological point of Genesis 1:1-2, which we see born out in the rest of the chapter. In fact, that truth forms a major foundation for the entire thelogical point of Genesis 1-11, which is the effects of sin on creation. Creation is all about order. Sin is all about disorder. Sin brings back the darkness and chaos that God removed (or filled, if you prefer).

Anyway, I've said enough about this. As I said, I'm not going to debate the idiotic gap theory. It's a grammatical impossibility. People who believe it may as well say that 2+2=5. It is a stupid theory, and you have to be very ignorant of Hebrew grammar to hold to it. The only further responses I'll offer in this thread are to those non-gappers interested in a proper understanding of Hebrew grammar or else to discuss the actual theology of Genesis 1. I'll not continue to debate debunk this ridiculous notion. May as well say the earth is flat. Just dumb.

[jalvarez4Jesus]

I'm going to offer this one and on this one post explaining why the above is foolish. THIS is why no one should waste their time with "I-learned-Greek/Hebrew-on-the-internet" garbage. It's clear J4J doesn't understand what he's reading.

Okay, all right. I'm not part of the "Hebrew elite" class of Nicolaitans. Uh huh. Get on with the point.

Regardless of the semantic classification of the waw-disjunctive that begins Gen 1:2, none of them permit a temporal gap of any kind between the two verses.

Of course it does! If the WAW-Disjuntive is in the contrastive sense, then the meaning is: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, BUT the earth was without form and void. God made the world, BUT something happened to it to make it without form and void. If God made the world, and something happened to it, there must have been something that happened to it after God made the world. Thus, there is a gap between verses 1 and 2 if the WAW-Disjuntive is in the contrastive sense. Think about it.

The semantic classification simply tells us more about the kind of disjunction. But disjunctions, by their nature, necessarily and always demonstrate a non-temporal relation between the two ideas being connected.

Prove it.

It is clear the disjunctive waw in 1:2 is being used circumstantially.

Uh, nope. It apparently wasn't clear enough for Jewish Josephus or the Greek LXX. Jeremiah 4 makes it clear that the Genesis 1:2 earth was just destroyed because of sin. That wasn't the original creation. God made the world, BUT something happened to it (God's destruction) to make it without form and void. Contrastive.

But even if we permitted a contrastive use (which j4j seems to favor above), there is still no "gap" between the two verses.

Yes there is! If God made the world, BUT something happened to it for it to be without form and void, something must have happened to it after God made the world before the earth was without form and void. A gap.

Such a usage compares two presently existing circumstances.

Nope! Such a usage CONTRASTS two DIFFERENT circumstances. That's why it's called the CONTRASTIVE SENSE! The fact that verse 2 is contrasted with verse 1 shows they must be two different circumstances.

So in the example Mounce uses, God looked at Abel's sacrifice favorably BUT (disjunctive waw) disapprovingly on Cain's. There is no gap between those. It's comparing ("contrasting") two realities.

Then you just admitted there is a gap! If Genesis 1:1 is contrasted with Genesis 1:2 as TWO DIFFERENT REALITIES, then Genesis 1:2 cannot be describing the same reality or condition as Genesis 1:1. Which would only make sense if Genesis 1:2 happens chronologically after Genesis 1:1.

Of course, it's obvious that there is no contrast between 1:1 and 1:2--the way it is existing is not being contrasted to the fact that it exists. That's just not the way the disjunctive works.

Josephus and the LXX thought so. You have to admit that it's at least possible with this in mind.

Look, if you want to move the story forward temporally, in Hebrew, you use the waw consecutive. That's just what you do. You can imply a waw consecutive if you like, but that's just how you do it. Put another way, if you want clause B to have a temporal relation to clause A (where that temporal relation is one of advancement), the tool by which you do that in Hebrew is the waw-consecutive. That's an important point to know when you get into Hebrew discourse grammar. You have main-line verbs and off-line verbs. Main line verbs are those independent clauses and tend to be at the beginning of the sentence and usually marked off with a waw-consecutive. Off-line verbs tell us something about the main line verb itself or the clause the main-line verb is governing and are usually marked off with a waw-disjunctive. They are not temporlaly related.

Yes they are, because Genesis 1:2 is contrasted with Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:2 cannot be describing the same time and condition as Genesis 1:2.

They are circumstantially or parenthetically related, or else they introduce an idea or show some contrast.

EXACTLY! Genesis 1:2 is CONTRASTED with Genesis 1:1. Which means Genesis 1:2 cannot be the same time or condition as Genesis 1:1!

To go back to the Can/Abel example, there is a good theological reason to use the disjunctive. The main line verb is that God looked favorably on Abel's sacrifice. The contrasting idea, that God did not approve of Cain's, sets up the motivation for Cain's murder, but even more it highlights the nature of Cain's sin. Observe:

1. Abel offers a sacrifice
2. God approves of Abel's sacrifice
3. Cain becomes angry
4. Cain kills Abel

When you trace the main line actions you see that's the movement of the story. And when the movement is so traced, you see the nature of Cain's sin much more clearly. If Moses had set off Cain's sacrifice with a main-line, temporally connected verb, he would have obscurred the very theological point he's trying to make--a point driven home by God's own warning of the danger that CAIN was in (not the danger Abel was in)! In fact, all of this grammar highlights God's warning. It's beautifully composed. Moses was one heck of a storyteller. And that's because he understood how the way-disjunctive works.

He was also under the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16). And Josephus also understood how the WAW-Disjuntive works.

J4J doesn't understand how it works. There is, again, no way that there can be a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. The two verses are connected via a waw-disjunctive and not a waw-consecutive.

No, they are not connected, they are dis-joined. They are contrasted. You're missing my point.

That means the verses are NON-TEMPORALLY related. That means they are CONCEPTUALLY related. And the only concept that makes sense is that of circumstnace.

No, they are not related, they are contrasted.

Verse 2 tells us something about the circumstances regarding the action of 1:1. God creates the earth, and the resulting creation was 1) formless and void, 2) shrouded in darkness, and 3) under God's loving protection. In other words, the initial creation was chaotic, and yet God was present in it bringing order to the chaos.

In other words, God did a poor job at creating the place and had to perform a last-ditch effort over the next seven days to repairing it. Not buying it. The WAW-Disjunctive is in the contrastive sense, not the circumstancial. God made the world, BUT something happened to it LATER. Gap, gap, gap.

And THAT is the theological point of Genesis 1:1-2, which we see born out in the rest of the chapter. In fact, that truth forms a major foundation for the entire thelogical point of Genesis 1-11, which is the effects of sin on creation. Creation is all about order. Sin is all about disorder. Sin brings back the darkness and chaos that God removed (or filled, if you prefer).

Uh, no. The "theological point" is that God made the world, and it was without form and void. That's what it says. Not sure why you would want to make an entire theology out of God creating the world.

Anyway, I've said enough about this. As I said, I'm not going to debate the idiotic gap theory. It's a grammatical impossibility.

No, it's not. I've already proven that.

People who believe it may as well say that 2+2=5. It is a stupid theory, and you have to be very ignorant of Hebrew grammar to hold to it. The only further responses I'll offer in this thread are to those non-gappers interested in a proper understanding of Hebrew grammar or else to discuss the actual theology of Genesis 1. I'll not continue to debate debunk this ridiculous notion. May as well say the earth is flat. Just dumb.

Well, there are quite a few flat earthers nowadays. They think the earth is, well, flat. (I disagree of course). They are also starting to say that forests don't exist and that we are GMO gods.

[Jac3510]

Thanks, J4J, for further demonstrating my more overarching point our regular posters have heard more than once about gappers. And welcome to my permignore list.

[jalvarez4Jesus]

Okay, bye bye then. But for everyone else: Another thing, it doesn't even HAVE TO BE in the contrastive state for there to be a gap. It can be in the introductory sense as well: http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap3.html

[RickD]

Jac only puts people on permignore who he's afraid to debate.




Signed,

Anonymous

[Philip]

Jalvarez must ask himself why no serious Hebrew scholar agrees with his analysis. These are people who have spent many years studying the nuances of ancient Hebrew grammar, and many other passages of the period, in which the same grammatical rules were applied. Languages have structures and rules. And what Jalvarez suggests denies that. Plus, what he's asserting describes an aftermath (of a destroyed former world), that clearly perfectly fits with the Creation's beginning - but he's morphing it to fit his preconceived belief.

Secondly, we're to believe God created a whole previous world, in which He's utterly destroyed. And so He supposedly finds it important and useful to reference, yet without any details that would make such an understanding crystal clear. Obviously, the sins of Israel would lay ruin and chaos, metaphorically akin to the earth's pre-Creation conditions. So, we're to believe God chooses to reveal copious details about the present earth's history, references some mass destruction of the past, doesn't explain it, make it clear, or understandable as to why the destruction, all the while knowing later readers wouldn't make this connection, so obscure, so vague, which ignores the period's Hebrew grammar rules. All of this resulting in no such clarity, and that even the scholars who have, for centuries, studied these Scriptures, with ever-greater insights, overwhelmingly reject this nonsense. And if you don't have the Christian scholars on board - at least a significant percent of them, then next to no one is going to buy into this strained interpretation.

Third, one must ask why the obsession and straining to fit such an obscure meaning to a tiny number of verses? What does it prove? Who do you expect to convince? What is the value of this? It's a pointless thing to argue for! Certainly, unprovable. And unless I was a Hebrew scholar, I sure wouldn't be pressing an interpretation that only a tiny few have - that is, amongst those considered credible scholars. So, you're wasting your breath and typing practice on this. ACB has spent countless hours trying to do the same thing. And NO facts, no logic, no scholarly refutation will deter him. And, around here, I think we all have a fondness for ACB, and we love ribbing him about this belief. But no one here has ever taken his assertions seriously - and for very good reasons. So don't waste further time on this quirky belief - at least upon pushing it here.

[Philip]

Some around here act as if Hebrew is some kind of Jewish beer that has a recipe that can change day to day.



Uh, well, ah...

[jalvarez4Jesus]

Philip, if you don't like the contrastive argument, please refer to the thread I just made suggesting it could also be the introductory sense.

[jalvarez4Jesus]

Jalvarez must ask himself why no serious Hebrew scholar agrees with his analysis. These are people who have spent many years studying the nuances of ancient Hebrew grammar, and many other passages of the period, in which the same grammatical rules were applied. Languages have structures and rules. And what Jalvarez suggests denies that. Plus, what he's asserting describes an aftermath (of a destroyed former world), that clearly perfectly fits with the Creation's beginning - but he's morphing it to fit his preconceived belief.

Secondly, we're to believe God created a whole previous world, in which He's utterly destroyed. And so He supposedly finds it important and useful to reference, yet without any details that would make such an understanding crystal clear. Obviously, the sins of Israel would lay ruin and chaos, metaphorically akin to the earth's pre-Creation conditions. So, we're to believe God chooses to reveal copious details about the present earth's history, references some mass destruction of the past, doesn't explain it, make it clear, or understandable as to why the destruction, all the while knowing later readers wouldn't make this connection, so obscure, so vague, which ignores the period's Hebrew grammar rules. All of this resulting in no such clarity, and that even the scholars who have, for centuries, studied these Scriptures, with ever-greater insights, overwhelmingly reject this nonsense. And if you don't have the Christian scholars on board - at least a significant percent of them, then next to no one is going to buy into this strained interpretation.

Third, one must ask why the obsession and straining to fit such an obscure meaning to a tiny number of verses? What does it prove? Who do you expect to convince? What is the value of this? It's a pointless thing to argue for! Certainly, unprovable. And unless I was a Hebrew scholar, I sure wouldn't be pressing an interpretation that only a tiny few have - that is, amongst those considered credible scholars. So, you're wasting your breath and typing practice on this. ACB has spent countless hours trying to do the same thing. And NO facts, no logic, no scholarly refutation will deter him. And, around here, I think we all have a fondness for ACB, and we love ribbing him about this belief. But no one here has ever taken his assertions seriously - and for very good reasons. So don't waste further time on this quirky belief - at least upon pushing it here.

From Bill Mounce on the Introductory Sense of the WAW-Disjuntive: "In this use, the disjunctive Waw may begin a new narrative or introduce a new idea or theme within a narrative." From Jeremiah 4, we can gather that Genesis 1:2 is talking about a new narrative (of God's destruction) that happened after verse 1. God didn't create the earth destroyed. That wouldn't make sense.

[Jac3510]

Jac only puts people on permignore who he's afraid to debate.




Signed,

Anonymous

edit:

Actually, it's for my own sanity. I can handle atheists and liberals. I can handle Lordship Salvationists. I can handle Calvinists and Arminians. Hell, I can even handle telemarketers. But gappers are a whole level of brainwashed that makes me want to say/type really bad words. Whenever I read their stupidity, I feel like I could relate to how DB feels whenever he watches Trump say pretty much anything. Their blatant disregard for facts is truly impressive. Jesus Himself could explain to them what is wrong with the theory and they would use that as evidence that the guy talking to them was just an imposter of the real Jesus. So I said my peace here and decided it would be far better for me not to let this become another ACB thing. Some things just aren't worth it. At least Audie and Kenny can be interesting, ya know? In other words, I just don't respect them, and it's much better for me and for the forum not to engage with people I don't think are respectable.

[RickD]

Jac only puts people on permignore who he's afraid to debate.




Signed,

Anonymous

edit:

Actually, it's for my own sanity. I can handle atheists and liberals. I can handle Lordship Salvationists. I can handle Calvinists and Arminians. Hell, I can even handle telemarketers. But gappers are a whole level of brainwashed that makes me want to say/type really bad words. Whenever I read their stupidity, I feel like I could relate to how DB feels whenever he watches Trump say pretty much anything. Their blatant disregard for facts is truly impressive. Jesus Himself could explain to them what is wrong with the theory and they would use that as evidence that the guy talking to them was just an imposter of the real Jesus. So I said my peace here and decided it would be far better for me not to let this become another ACB thing. Some things just aren't worth it. At least Audie and Kenny can be interesting, ya know? In other words, I just don't respect them, and it's much better for me and for the forum not to engage with people I don't think are respectable.

In other words, you're

[RickD]

But seriously Jac,

If you have the time it would go a long way towards putting the gap theory to rest. At least on this forum.

[Jac3510]

Honest question: how is it not already put to rest? Gen 1:1-2 are connected by a non-temporal relation. The GT is necessarily based a temporal relation between the verses. Look at the sentences I presented to ACB a long time ago:

• 1) (a) While I was typing this, (b) I got a headache. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
  2) (a) I fell off my bike (b) because the ground was so uneven. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
  3) (a) I voted today. (b) It was cold, rainy, and perfectly expressed my feelings about the candidates. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).

In all cases, the b clauses are non-temporally related to the a clauses. You cannot suggest a gap between them. The language just will not allow it. And that is exactly what we see with Gen 1:1-3. Here's my translation:

• In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. The earth was uninhabited and uninhabitable, was shrouded in darkness, and the Spirit of God hovered protectively over it. Then God said, "Let there be light," etc.

The second verse can't be separated from the first. It tells you something about the first verse. The main line verbs are "created" and "said." They are one move the story forward. The first thing is the creation event itself. Then we have a line telling us something about that creation (the three circumstantial clauses). The second thing is God speaking. That's just the flow of the story.

Again, there is just no "room," linguistically speaking, for a gap. If that isn't clear, if that doesn't click, I truly am at a loss for what else to say. It is as obvious as 1+1=2. If someone says that 1+1=3, they're just wrong. It's not an interpretive question. It's a factual question. This is just grammar. Temporal connections are made with a waw-consecutive (and that usually because you have a device that used to be called a waw-hahipuch, a waw of reversal, in which you the waw at the beginning of an imperfective verb gives it a perfective aspect; or a perfective verb gets an imperfective aspect; and it is usually imperfective verbs (that become perfective) that move the story forward). We don't have a waw-consecutive here. Ergo, we don't have a temporal connection. We have a conceptual, non-temporal connection. We have a waw-disjunctive.

Anyway, I'm just repeating myself because I don't know what else to say. I don't have any idea how to put the idea to rest other than presenting these facts.. ACB and J4J aren't going to be convinced because they don't care about facts. But for those who do, I don't know what else we could possibly need. It's just completely and totally impossible to take the passage that way. Now, if you have any ideas how I could further clarify, I'd be more than willing to offer my thoughts. But I'm honestly at a loss for what else could or needs to be said.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
...Now, if you have any ideas how I could further clarify, I'd be more than willing to offer my thoughts. But I'm honestly at a loss for what else could or needs to be said.

Sorry Jac. I'm afraid I'm no help. It's all Greek to me.