Gap Theory

[abelcainsbrother]

Ask youself this,why would God tell Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth is if there was no life before them? If there was life before them as science shows there were,why not realize the word "replenish" was right the whole time and the word "fill" is not right?

This highlights one of many significant Scriptural problems for the Gap Theory. As we've discussed before, God didn't tell mankind to 'replenish' the earth, in Genesis 1:28 God tells mankind to 'fill' the earth.
This argument for the Gap theory is built upon an archaic (from an English translation perspective) mistranslation.

OK but you have to atleast admit that up until these modern translations changed it to "fill" the Gap Theory was true according to the KJV,so you'll just choose a different interpretation,like so many do?

No... the Gap theory has always contradicted the Genesis 1 narrative.
Genesis 1 has never said that dry land appeared before Genesis 1:2
Genesis 1 has never said that plant life was created before Genesis 1:2
Genesis 1 has never said that animal life was created before Genesis 1:2

And the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:28 has always meant 'fill''. 'Replenish' is an incorrect archaic English translation made by the KJV translators.
The other English translations aren't changing a true translation. They are correcting the incorrect KJV translation.

If the Gap Theory is built upon an incorrect archaic English translation of Scripture, then that is just another evidence that the Gap Theory is not consistent with what Scripture actually says.

So it comes down to just choosing a translation that says what you want it to instead of really digging into it to see who is right and who is wrong?If the KJV translation backed up by scientific evidence is correct then you are wrong.I gave you three examples of evidence that reveals to us the earth is old and that life had been around before God made and created life in Genesis 1.The scientific evidence confirms the word replenish is the correct interpretation and that fill cannot be right because we have evidence of pre-Adamite races that existed before man was created in Genesis 1 confirming this interpretation correct and the word "replenish" is correct,plus knowing the difference between the hebrew words "bara" and "asah" says life had existed before God made and created life in Genesis 1 so that it is two reasons how we know the correct interpretation.

The thing about going by your interpretation is that we must just believe what you claim without any evidence it is correct, where the way I interpret it I have atleast three examples of reasons why this interpretation is correct plus scientific evidence that confirms it is the true interpretation also. I do not have to believe my interpretion by blind faith like you do and just declare I'm right.You're just going on the words of modern translators.

[DBowling]

So it comes down to just choosing a translation that says what you want it to instead of really digging into it to see who is right and who is wrong?

No... it comes down to digging into the original languages to see if the Hebrew really says "replenish" or not (a hint... it doesn't). This isn't about choosing what translation fits our presuppositions. It's about discovering what the Hebrew really says. The Hebrew does not say "replenish", it says "fill".

You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. You are rejecting what Scripture actually says in order to embrace an unScriptural Tradition.
Scripture does not say 'replenish'. It says 'fill'.
Instead of embracing what Scripture actually says, you are choosing to embrace a known mistranslation because the mistranslation supports your unScriptural Gap Theory.

The thing about going by your interpretation is that we must just believe what you claim without any evidence it is correct, where the way I interpret it I have atleast three examples of reasons why this interpretation is correct plus scientific evidence that confirms it is the true interpretation also. I do not have to believe my interpretion by blind faith like you do and just declare I'm right.You're just going on the words of modern translators.

I'm basing my interpretations on Hebrew scholarship, and what the Hebrew Scriptural text actually says.
You are basing your beliefs on an English mistranslation, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what bara and asah mean. If you don't have a proper understanding of what 'male', 'bara', and 'asah' mean then of course your understanding of Genesis 1 is going to be fundamentally flawed.

[abelcainsbrother]

So it comes down to just choosing a translation that says what you want it to instead of really digging into it to see who is right and who is wrong?

No... it comes down to digging into the original languages to see if the Hebrew really says "replenish" or not (a hint... it doesn't). This isn't about choosing what translation fits our presuppositions. It's about discovering what the Hebrew really says. The Hebrew does not say "replenish", it says "fill".

You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. You are rejecting what Scripture actually says in order to embrace an unScriptural Tradition.
Scripture does not say 'replenish'. It says 'fill'.
Instead of embracing what Scripture actually says, you are choosing to embrace a known mistranslation because the mistranslation supports your unScriptural Gap Theory.

The thing about going by your interpretation is that we must just believe what you claim without any evidence it is correct, where the way I interpret it I have atleast three examples of reasons why this interpretation is correct plus scientific evidence that confirms it is the true interpretation also. I do not have to believe my interpretion by blind faith like you do and just declare I'm right.You're just going on the words of modern translators.

I'm basing my interpretations on Hebrew scholarship, and what the Hebrew Scriptural text actually says.
You are basing your beliefs on an English mistranslation, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what bara and asah mean. If you don't have a proper understanding of what 'male', 'bara', and 'asah' mean then of course your understanding of Genesis 1 is going to be fundamentally flawed.

Like I said,you're going by what modern translators say and must believe that interpretation by blind faith.I don't see how you can overlook evidence so easily.I mean you are good when it comes to the shroud of Turin,but in this case it seems you're willing to overlook evidence just because the Gap Theory does'nt sound right to you.It seems more bias based than truth based in this case. I'm glad that I can say that the interpretation I believe is biblically based and confirmed by nature God created also.The truth of God's word only matters to me and I don't care about what might be popular or not.I have no bias when it comes to God's word.My goal is to "Let God be true and every man a liar" when it comes to God's word.I'd change my mind quick if I found out the Gap theory is wrong.

Even if I had a ministry promoting the Gap Theory for years and had a team of scientists working for me to confirm this interpretation correct and had just published a book that teaches why the Gap Theory is true.If I found out it was wrong I would come out immediately and say I was wrong,forgive me.

[Philip]

ACB: Even if I had a ministry promoting the Gap Theory for years and had a team of scientists working for me to confirm this interpretation correct and had just published a book that teaches why the Gap Theory is true.If I found out it was wrong I would come out immediately and say I was wrong,forgive me.

Well, at the very least, you have considerable reason to highly doubt it. And the translation issue is just the beginning of it. Ancient Hebrew had rules - it can't mean what you insist. And this concept is not given any clarification are illumination anywhere else in Scripture. That's a huge problem. A whole other world existed, something caused it's destruction - if even alluded to briefly - why would it be revealed and not explained - as this would be a pivotal part of mankind's history? So, desperate to chase shadows, one can buy into most any kind of nonsense. GAP Theory is just that.

[DBowling]

Like I said,you're going by what modern translators say and must believe that interpretation by blind faith.

You still keep making the same untrue assertion about me over and over again. So I will directly confront this lie of yours.
I accept what the Scriptures say by faith, but it is not a blind faith.
I have the honor of being born into the family of a legitimate Hebrew scholar. My father has taught Hebrew longer than I have been alive. My father has written a Hebrew grammar, and my father has been published in a number of scholarly Christian publications.

When it comes to Hebrew, there are any number of Hebrew Lexicons and other tools available (some on the internet) that can definitively demonstrate that you are factually incorrect regarding male, bara, and asah. And then on top of that there is my father, who is a legitimate published Hebrew scholar in his own right.

So I know for a fact that you are wrong on this.
My faith in what Scripture says is not a blind faith.

So who is really relying on blind faith here?
a) A person who relies on what Scripture really says, and who has done the research to discover what the Hebrew really means.
b) A person who relies on an archaic English mistranslation in the KJV (which has been corrected in the NKJV, BTW) and who has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance regarding the meaning of male, bara, and asah.

I will always put my faith in the Word of God, over the assertions of those who perpetuate distortions of Scripture in an effort to prop up an unScriptural tradition.

If I found out it was wrong I would come out immediately and say I was wrong,forgive me.

Then there is an easy solution for you here.

Find 5 reputable Hebrew/English Lexicons and look up 'male', 'bara', and 'asah'
Your error will become immediately obvious.

If you actually take the time to dig into what the Hebrew really means, you will discover the following...
'male' means 'fill' in English
'bara' means 'create/make' in English
'asah' means 'make/do' in English

You are currently perpetuating a distortion of God's Word. That is not a good place to be.

In Christ

[abelcainsbrother]

Like I said,you're going by what modern translators say and must believe that interpretation by blind faith.

You still keep making the same untrue assertion about me over and over again. So I will directly confront this lie of yours.
I accept what the Scriptures say by faith, but it is not a blind faith.
I have the honor of being born into the family of a legitimate Hebrew scholar. My father has taught Hebrew longer than I have been alive. My father has written a Hebrew grammar, and my father has been published in a number of scholarly Christian publications.

When it comes to Hebrew, there are any number of Hebrew Lexicons and other tools available (some on the internet) that can definitively demonstrate that you are factually incorrect regarding male, bara, and asah. And then on top of that there is my father, who is a legitimate published Hebrew scholar in his own right.

So I know for a fact that you are wrong on this.
My faith in what Scripture says is not a blind faith.

So who is really relying on blind faith here?
a) A person who relies on what Scripture really says, and who has done the research to discover what the Hebrew really means.
b) A person who relies on an archaic English mistranslation in the KJV (which has been corrected in the NKJV, BTW) and who has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance regarding the meaning of male, bara, and asah.

I will always put my faith in the Word of God, over the assertions of those who perpetuate distortions of Scripture in an effort to prop up an unScriptural tradition.

If I found out it was wrong I would come out immediately and say I was wrong,forgive me.

Then there is an easy solution for you here.

Find 5 reputable Hebrew/English Lexicons and look up 'male', 'bara', and 'asah'
Your error will become immediately obvious.

If you actually take the time to dig into what the Hebrew really means, you will discover the following...
'male' means 'fill' in English
'bara' means 'create/make' in English
'asah' means 'make/do' in English

You are currently perpetuating a distortion of God's Word. That is not a good place to be.

In Christ

You are twisting what I said.I did not say about you what you accuse me of.I did not say you believe scripture by blind faith I said that when it comes to your interpretation of the word "replenish" amd how you change it to "fill" you must believe that interpretation by blind faith and you do.Also when it comes to the differences between "bara" and "asah" and how they back up the word "replenish" that was used,but you reject this,again you must believe your interpretation by blind faith,unlike I do.

You see Moses did not tell us to focus on the hebrew word "male" although we can, he wanted us to learn the difference between "bara" and "asah" in Genesis 2:1-4 and this is so that we would read Genesis 1 properly when we read it,this is why it follows right after Genesis 1 in Genesis 2.Since you have not taken the time to dig into the differences between the words 'bara' and 'asah' like Genesis 2:1-4 tells us to do you cannot be reading Genesis 1 right.

You're wrong trying to claim "bara" and "asah" mean the same thing and are ignoring Genesis 2:1-4 for some reason.Why don't you actually look up the english definition of "created" and then look up the word "make".It is the same as in hebrew - created means new,make does'nt. Christians have been wrong before,by the way. You can never say anywhere in the whole OT that "asah" means something new like created and "asah" means to do work on something,it is never something new and so cannot mean the same thing as created does.This is a myth that critics of the Gap Theory teach and it is one reason why I believe the Gap Theory is true.

They lose credibility when they teach things that are not true and I'm applyng this to critics who claim "bara" and "asah" mean the same thing and are interchangeable.It is not true throughout the whole OT too.I have taken the time to dig into this to fnd out who is right and who is wrong about it.

Let me make it clear that when I say you must believe it by blind faith I'm specifically talking about how you change the word "replenish" to "fill" and also your understanding of the difference between "bara" and "asah" that confirms the word "replenish" was right.I am not saying this about the rest of the bible and how you interpret it.

Again the Gap Theory interpretation was confirmed true based on the science discovered in the 17th and 18th century.This is why the same evidence evolutionists use can be used as evidence for the Gap Theory too. So when evolutionists find hominids and neanderthals claiming that these evolved into men or are related to man they are wrong because man and women both male and female was created and so they were a new creation by God.They have overlooked the former world and the gap between that former world and this world we now live in and are looking at history all wrong.

[DBowling]

I did not say you believe scripture by blind faith I said that when it comes to your interpretation of the word "replenish" amd how you change it to "fill" you must believe that interpretation by blind faith and you do.

This is not an interpretation issue, this is a translation issue.
Replenish is an inaccurate translation (in modern English) of the Hebrew 'male'.
That is not an issue that is open to different interpretations or opinions, it is a fact.
As any good Hebrew/English Lexicon will tell you.

Also when it comes to the differences between "bara" and "asah" and how they back up the word "replenish" that was used,but you reject this,again you must believe your interpretation by blind faith,unlike I do.

Again what bara and asah mean in Hebrew is not an interpretation issue, it is a translation issue.
Words mean things, and you are factually wrong on what bara and asah mean.
As any good Hebrew/English Lexicon will tell you.

You are pitting your blind faith in known mistranslations against a multitude of Hebrew scholars who actually know what they are talking about.

Let me make it clear that when I say you must believe it by blind faith I'm specifically talking about how you change the word "replenish" to "fill" and also your understanding of the difference between "bara" and "asah" that confirms the word "replenish" was right.I am not saying this about the rest of the bible and how you interpret it.

Again the meaning of the word male has never changed. It has always meant 'fill'.
That is a known Hebrew fact.

Now, did you follow my advice and look up male, bara, and asah in 5 Hebrew/English Lexicons?
If not, why not?
Are you concerned that your position will be contradicted by Hebrew scholars that actually know what Hebrew words mean?

If so, what did you find?
Did you find any support from Hebrew scholars for your mistranslations... or did they confirm what I have claimed all along:
'male' means 'fill' in English
'bara' means 'create/make' in English
'asah' means 'make/do' in English

If your understanding of 'male', 'bara', and 'asah' are demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed by knowledgeable Biblical Hebrew scholars, who are you putting your faith in to tell you what Hebrew words mean?

[abelcainsbrother]

I did not say you believe scripture by blind faith I said that when it comes to your interpretation of the word "replenish" amd how you change it to "fill" you must believe that interpretation by blind faith and you do.

This is not an interpretation issue, this is a translation issue.
Replenish is an inaccurate translation (in modern English) of the Hebrew 'male'.
That is not an issue that is open to different interpretations or opinions, it is a fact.
As any good Hebrew/English Lexicon will tell you.

Also when it comes to the differences between "bara" and "asah" and how they back up the word "replenish" that was used,but you reject this,again you must believe your interpretation by blind faith,unlike I do.

Again what bara and asah mean in Hebrew is not an interpretation issue, it is a translation issue.
Words mean things, and you are factually wrong on what bara and asah mean.
As any good Hebrew/English Lexicon will tell you.

You are pitting your blind faith in known mistranslations against a multitude of Hebrew scholars who actually know what they are talking about.

Let me make it clear that when I say you must believe it by blind faith I'm specifically talking about how you change the word "replenish" to "fill" and also your understanding of the difference between "bara" and "asah" that confirms the word "replenish" was right.I am not saying this about the rest of the bible and how you interpret it.

Again the meaning of the word male has never changed. It has always meant 'fill'.
That is a known Hebrew fact.

Now, did you follow my advice and look up male, bara, and asah in 5 Hebrew/English Lexicons?
If not, why not?
Are you concerned that your position will be contradicted by Hebrew scholars that actually know what Hebrew words mean?

If so, what did you find?
Did you find any support from Hebrew scholars for your mistranslations... or did they confirm what I have claimed all along:
'male' means 'fill' in English
'bara' means 'create/make' in English
'asah' means 'make/do' in English

If your understanding of 'male', 'bara', and 'asah' are demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed by knowledgeable Biblical Hebrew scholars, who are you putting your faith in to tell you what Hebrew words mean?

No matter how much you declare you're right.We have scientific evidence that proves "replenish" is the correct interpretation and "bara" and "asah" confirms it also. How come you ignore the evidence of pre-Adamite races that existed before man did and then insist "fill" is correct contrary to the evidence? Replenish is correct. You just declaring you're right does not make it so and again you must believe the "fill" interpretation by blind faith. I'm not attacking you or judging you as a Christian or anything like that I'm just trying to show why in this case the way you interpret it is not right.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: Even if I had a ministry promoting the Gap Theory for years and had a team of scientists working for me to confirm this interpretation correct and had just published a book that teaches why the Gap Theory is true.If I found out it was wrong I would come out immediately and say I was wrong,forgive me.

Well, at the very least, you have considerable reason to highly doubt it. And the translation issue is just the beginning of it. Ancient Hebrew had rules - it can't mean what you insist. And this concept is not given any clarification are illumination anywhere else in Scripture. That's a huge problem. A whole other world existed, something caused it's destruction - if even alluded to briefly - why would it be revealed and not explained - as this would be a pivotal part of mankind's history? So, desperate to chase shadows, one can buy into most any kind of nonsense. GAP Theory is just that.

Why should we doubt it if God's word reveals it is true?We should be more concerned with finding out which interpretation is correct because they all cannot be correct.If this interpretation cannot be right the neither can Day Age,Theistic evolution,etc because they are similar old earth interpretations but just overlook the gap.As a matter of fact the Scofield bible written in 1909 acknowledges Day Age as an interpretation too,eventhough it leans more toward the Gap Theory interpretation.I think most Gap Theorists acknowledge that the days in Genesis can mean longer days than just 24 hour days but with the Gap Theory interpretation there is really no need to,eventhough it is possibly true,eventhough there was still a gap and because God is eternal.This is why J Vernon McGee used to teach that you can get as much time out of the bible as you need for your particular interpretation.I can answer your question.It is simply that God is more concerned with this world than he is the former world but we can dig out the truth of the former world if we choose to just like with many other bible teachings.Seek and ye shall find.

[Philip]

ACB: "God is more concerned with this world than he is the former world ..."

Yes, ACB, note how unimportant this supposed former world must be to God - so obscurely referenced, that after 2000 years, with scholars' understandings having reaches a level of knowledge far beyond previous times, and yet only a tiny few scholars see what you do in this text. This means that even IF such a gap occurred, it is entirely unimportant for us to know about, as we're given absolutely no clarity that it even existed to begin with. God typically gives some level of detail to important things that impact us. And to suggest that God did away with a previous humanity or world, and yet without A) giving us any certainty that it exists and B) that it's never expounded upon or explained by the apostles or Jesus - these tell me that IF it existed, it is unimportant for us to know. And yet, people like you are obsessed with chasing shadows most Biblical scholars deny even exist. WHY??? Why do you care to write countless posts about something no one knows exists? What profit is there in this obsession? Course, I would say this to anyone obsessed with the age of the earth, or events long before God created mankind and the earth. What, pray tell, has the length of that to do with anything that truly matters - and that is the case whether the time was very short, or extremely long.

ACB: "But we can dig out the truth of the former world if we choose to just like with many other bible teachings.Seek and ye shall find."

Just as you said, the evidence can be explained otherwise - meaning, you've go a lot more than mere Bible text that strongly suggests you are totally wrong. I just don't see why you think this is so important?

[DBowling]

No matter how much you declare you're right.We have scientific evidence that proves "replenish" is the correct interpretation and "bara" and "asah" confirms it also.

No...no... no... no... no... no... no!!!

Science has no impact whatsoever on whether a translation from Hebrew to English is correct or not.
Translating from one language to another is a function of linguistics.

Now science can be consistent with or inconsistent with a particular ancient Hebrew text, but translating languages and the natural sciences are totally different disciplines.

The way to determine whether a translation from Hebrew to English is accurate is to investigate Hebrew grammars and Hebrew Lexicons.

If you want to know what the Hebrew male, bara, and asah mean, you need to start with a Hebrew Lexicon.

Beating a dead horse here... but if you do the due diligence to discover what these Hebrew words mean according to legitimate Hebrew linguistic tools, you will discover that...
'male' means fill in English
'bara' means create/make in English
'asah' means make/do in English

How come you ignore the evidence of pre-Adamite races that existed before man did and then insist "fill" is correct contrary to the evidence? Replenish is correct.

Because the existence of pre-Adamic races has nothing whatsoever to do with what the Hebrew word 'male' means.
The meaning of the Hebrew word 'male' is a linguistic issue, that is totally independent from the scientific question of whether or not pre-Adamic hominid species... or even pre-Adamic humans for that matter... existed.

You just declaring you're right does not make it so and again you must believe the "fill" interpretation by blind faith.

No what makes me right and you wrong in this particular instance, is my claims are consistent with Hebrew scholarship.
While your claims are just factually inaccurate assertions, with no factual basis in Hebrew scholarship.

Again... I still recommend that you look up male, bara, and asah in 5 Hebrew/English Lexicons.
Hebrew lexicons and other tools will very quickly demonstrate that you are factually wrong on the meaning of these Hebrew words.

[RickD]

It seems the entire argument for the Gap Theory rests on the one translation, The King James translation, that says male means replenish.

ACB,

You did say that if the Gap Theory was proven wrong, you'd give up defending it. Looks to me that DBowling is right.

Are you really searching for the truth? Will you look at 5 Hebrew lexicons, to see the meaning of male?

Edit:
ACB,

Replenish, and even the King James translation isn't the problem. Replenish is a proper translation. But, when the king James was written, replenish meant, "to supply fully". Replenish didn't mean, "refill". The meaning of replenish has changed over the 400 years since the king James was written.

Here's an article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotque ... words.html

Replenish. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve to “replenish” the earth. Many readers are confused by this word, thinking it means the earth was formerly inhabited and that Adam and Eve’s descendants would replace an original race. The Hebrew word male' actually meant “to fill completely,” not “to refill.”

In 1611, the English meaning (now archaic) of replenish was “to supply fully.” The re- does not mean “again,” as we might think. In this case, it is an intensive prefix; that is, it adds a sense of urgency to the verb. So replenish could be defined as “to fill with urgency and enthusiasm.”

So to restate what DBowling said, you are misinterpreting the meaning of male. It has never meant, "refill". It has always meant, "fill". You are basing the Gap Theory on the modern meaning of "replenish", when the king James meaning of replenish, means "fill".

It's actually pretty simple to see with a basic internet search. But, as DBowling did, I also challenge you to dig deeper, and get 5 Hebrew lexicon meanings of male.

If you're truly honest, you'll change your mind.

[DBowling]

Replenish, and even the King James translation isn't the problem. Replenish is a proper translation. But, when the king James was written, replenish meant, "to supply fully". Replenish didn't mean, "refill". The meaning of replenish has changed over the 400 years since the king James was written.

Here's an article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotque ... words.html

Replenish. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve to “replenish” the earth. Many readers are confused by this word, thinking it means the earth was formerly inhabited and that Adam and Eve’s descendants would replace an original race. The Hebrew word male' actually meant “to fill completely,” not “to refill.”

In 1611, the English meaning (now archaic) of replenish was “to supply fully.” The re- does not mean “again,” as we might think. In this case, it is an intensive prefix; that is, it adds a sense of urgency to the verb. So replenish could be defined as “to fill with urgency and enthusiasm.”

Excellent point, Rick!

When I was discussing this with my father, he said that I was being a bit harsh on the KJV translators.

'male' has always meant 'to fill'
but as you point out, the meaning of the English word 'replenish' has changed between 1611 and 2017

The 1611 definition of 'replenish' is to fill up completely, and 'to fill up completely' is an accurate translation for 'male'.
The modern definition of 'replenish' can mean to fill up again, and 'to fill up again' is NOT an accurate translation for 'male'

That is why the NKJV and other modern translations all use the word fill instead of replenish.
The definition of the Hebrew word 'male' has not changed. It has always meant to fill.

However, the definition of the English word 'replenish' has changed since 1611. So what was once an accurate English translation in 1611 is no longer an accurate modern English translation due to the change in the meaning of the English word 'replenish'.

[Philip]

Sometimes, there are those of us who have such a long-time emotional investment in some incorrect belief, that we cannot seem to come to grips wth the realization that powerful and inescapable evidences are persuasively correlating, so much so and to the point that it becomes unreasonable to continue to invest in a false belief we have held so long. When so many of one's cherished premises for holding a belief are clearly revealed to be false, one has to realize that only stubbornness, blind emotion, and pride are preventing us from facing reality - certainly whenever we discover overwhelming evidences which are screaming that it isn't rational to continue to hold a particular view. This is particularly true when one STRONGLY believes something so pathetically supported by evidences. ACB, this is your issue with GAP - it's an emotional belief, as it has become painfully obvious that NO level of evidence will dissuade your belief. But it's time to rethink it!

[Stu]

I like how all the Day-Agers are pointing out that Gap Theory is wrong when there is no Biblical proof of their own views. Their view is solely one of a personal interpretation.