For January-March 2000
Volume 3 Number 1

[ Home ] [ More Editions of Perspectives ] [ Our Feature Article ] [ Comments from Viewers ] [ Questions & Answers ]

This page provides a place for the opinion of our editors and viewers and for answers to short questions from our viewers.

Our Feature Article

Plugging the Gaps in the Gap Theory: Genesis 1 Revisited

Christians agree that God created the universe, but they have differing opinions about how God did the creating. Conservative Christians generally belong to one of two camps on this issue. Where do you stand?

by Doug Ward

Most "old-earth creationists" agree with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe and tend to view the "days" of Genesis 1as long periods of time. "Young-earth creationists", in contrast, believe that God created the universe during a seven-day period that occurred thousands, rather than millions or billions, of years ago. On the internet, information can be found, for example, at www.reasons.org (for old-earth creationism) and www.answersingenesis.org (for young-earth creationism).

There are significant problems with both views. In maintaining that the universe is only several thousand years old, young-earth creationists deny a large body of scientific evidence that supports a much earlier date for the universe's creation. On the other hand, old-earth creationists offer interpretations of Genesis 1 that are in harmony with science but not with the usual principles of biblical hermeneutics. The creation account beginning in Genesis 1:2 does seem to be talking about literal 24-hour days rather than eons of time.

Some old-earth creationists believe that these problems can be resolved with a model known in evangelical circles as the "gap theory"'. According to this model, which was popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible, there was an original creation "in the beginning"; but later, presumably as a result of Satan's rebellion, the earth came to be in a state of chaos and confusion. A re-creation of the earth then took place during a one-week period several thousand years ago.

The gap theory preserves the 24-hour days of creation in Genesis 1 and allows for an original creation of the universe in the indefinite past. Unfortunately, this scenario also has its problems. In particular, it asserts that the word usually translated "was'' in Genesis 1:2 can be translated "became'', signaling a gap in time between verses one and two. However, most Hebrew scholars tend to reject this assertion. Moreover, the idea that the earth entered a state of chaos because of Satan's rebellion is a speculation that is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

Is there some other interpretation of Genesis 1 that is both faithful to the text and in agreement with the current state of scientific knowledge? In the fascinating recent book entitled Genesis Unbound_(Multnomah, 1996), John Sailhamer, a specialist in Semitic languages and the Pentateuch, discusses this question and presents an exegesis of Genesis 1-2 that may rescue the gap theory.

Sailhamer, the Arthur B. Whiting Professor of Old Testament Languages and Literature at Western Seminary, argues that understanding the intended meaning of the text of Genesis 1 should be our first concern. In other words, after we understand what Genesis 1 is saying, we can then go on to consider the claims of science.

The title of Sailhamer's book, Genesis Unbound, stems from his contention that modern readers are "bound'' in their attempts to interpret the text by implicit assumptions that have been guiding translators and readers for centuries. This is known variously as a hermeneutic, worldview, and paradigm. Two of these underlying assumptions are the following:

1. The assumption that the Hebrew phrase tohu wabohu in Genesis 1:2 denotes a state of chaos and confusion.

2. The assumption that the creation account beginning in Genesis 1:2 involved the entire planet Earth. 

The translation "without form and void'' in the King James Version reflects the first assumption that tohu wabohu means a state of chaos and confusion. This rendering goes back to the translators of the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In ancient Greek cosmology, the universe arose from a primeval state of chaos, and translators incorporated this view of origins into the Septuagint and into many later translations by the way they render the phrase tohu wabohu. However, according to Sailhamer, the Hebrew phrase is better translated as an "uninhabited wilderness'', a place that would have to be prepared for human habitation. For example, the wilderness in which the Israelites wandered for forty years was such a place.

The Hebrew word eretz, translated "earth'' in Genesis 1:2 in the KJV, can refer to our entire planet in some contexts. For example, in Genesis 1:1, eretz is part of the figure of speech "the heavens and the earth'', which is meant to picture the whole universe. More often, however, the word refers to "the land'', especially the Promised Land. Today Israelis still refer to their country as Eretz Israel (the land of Israel).

When we become aware of such assumptions, Sailhamer says, we can then come closer to comprehending the meaning of the text. In order to understand a scripture, or any text for that manner, we must recall that the explication or the interpretation of a text in isolation from its cultural and literary context, eisegesis, leads to a distortion of the text. A text can not mean what it did not mean in its original context to its author and anticipated readers.

A third Hebrew word that plays a key role in Sailhamer's exegesis of Genesis 1 is reshit, the word for "beginning'' in Genesis 1:1. In the Hebrew Scriptures, this word refers to an indefinite period of time that precedes some series of events. For example, in Job 8:7, it denotes the early part of Job's life, before his great trials begin; and in Jeremiah 28:1, it refers to events in the early part (in this case, the fourth year) of Zedekiah's reign. In the ancient Near East, the first period of a king's reign was generally not reckoned as part of the official length of his reign. This initial period was sometimes a few months long but could be as long as several years, and the Hebrew Scriptures use the word reshit for it.

Based on the analysis of these Hebrew words and others, Sailhamer proposes that Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the universe, which took place during an indefinite period of time that could possibly have lasted millions or billions of years. The account beginning in Genesis 1:2, on the other hand, describes the preparation of the Promised Land for human habitation and the creation of the first humans during a literal week just thousands of years ago.

In addition to reconciling the claims of science and Genesis 1, this model fits well in the context of the first two chapters of Genesis and the Pentateuch as a whole. As the standpoint of Genesis 2 is a localized focus upon the Garden of Eden, it makes sense that after the universal statement of Genesis 1:1,that the rest of Genesis 1 would have a local focus as well. Moreover, one of the main themes of the Pentateuch is the promise given to the patriarchs, which included the promise of the land, so it is natural that this theme would be introduced right at the beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Sailhamer includes a paraphrase and a detailed exegesis of Genesis 1 in Genesis Unbound to provide further details and support for his model. By now, you probably have several questions about how certain verses fit into his scenario. For the answers, I refer you to the book itself. In this article, I will mention one point that I found especially interesting.

Exodus 20:11 records that "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,'' but the word for "made'' has the sense of putting something in good order or making it right, as in the English expression "make a bed''. When we make a bed, we are not each day creating it from scratch. Similarly, with much of what God "made'' during the six days of creation, he was putting the finishing touches on one part of the world that He had created from scratch "in the beginning''. For example, the word for "trees'' in Genesis 1:11 refers only to fruit trees. Other plants, like those mentioned in Genesis 1:29-30, were apparently already in existence. Similarly, God did not bring the sun, moon, and stars into existence on the fourth day; rather, He established and proclaimed their purpose in marking off time for mankind, including time for worship. Sailhamer paraphrases Genesis 1:14-19 as follows:

    As he had done on each of the preceding days, God spoke on the fourth day to issue a decree that the heavenly bodies were to serve a particular purpose for those who were to dwell on the land. They were to remind God's creatures of His power and grace, and they were to mark the arrival of the great feast days when His people were to worship Him in the land. Such special purposes for the heavenly bodies were in addition to their natural function as sources of light upon the land. So we see that God had a purpose in mind when long ago He created the sun and the moon, as well as the stars. They were to provide a time frame for those who dwell on the land. God also put them in the sky to provide bright light in the daytime and faint light in the night--this was good for human beings. So ended the fourth day. (Sailhamer 1996:100-101)

Sailhamer also explains that his model is not one that he created from scratch. In the last part of Genesis Unbound, he traces the history of the translation and interpretation of Genesis 1. In particular, he points out that Rashi and other medieval Jewish commentators viewed the creation week account as pertaining to the Holy Land rather than to the whole earth. Some Reformation era Christian scholars promoted this point of view, but unfortunately, the view has not become widely known.

In summary, John Sailhamer makes three important points in Genesis Unbound that should be taken into account in discussions of Genesis 1-2:

• First, since the state of our scientific knowledge is always changing, we should try to understand what the biblical text is saying on its own terms before we attempt to harmonize it with our current scientific understanding.

• Second, we can gain valuable historical perspective for our exegesis of Genesis 1-2 by learning about the way these chapters have been interpreted in the past. In particular, such a study reveals that the way we translate certain words in Genesis 1 relies on some assumptions of ancient science--like the idea of the earth originating in primeval chaos--that should no longer govern our interpretation of the text.

• Third, there are more interpretive options available for a faithful reading of Genesis 1-2 than we have traditionally recognized. These options include possibilities for a viable version of the gap theory.

Although Genesis Unbound discusses technical points such as the technical meanings of Hebrew words, it is written for a general audience. The book makes fascinating reading, and I enthusiastically recommend it. Sailhamer provides further discussion of his interpretation of Genesis 1-2 in his book, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Sailhamer 1992). For a less favorable review of Genesis Unbound from a different point of view, visit http://www.theology.edu/unbound.htm.

Comments from Our Viewers

Please send us your Comments by e-mail. All submissions must be signed and include your street or route address and telephone number, which we require for verification purposes only. We reserve the right to use or not use comments so addressed (in whole or in part, as deemed in the public interest), to include your name, and to edit or condense your comments for clarity and space. Click here to send us Comments.

A Young Earth?

I doubt the Editor has looked at any of the recent "fossil evidence" and how it supports the idea that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Some of the evidence includes fossils with red blood cells (which decompose after several thousand years), and a man's foot print fossilized in
a dinosaur's foot print found in Texas.

There are many credible scientists who have found NUMEROUS pieces of scientific evidence that support the earth being only thousands of years old. Everyone's ideas about the forming of the earth are "assumptions," because the past, just like the Bible, can not be proven.

You have a wonder staff and produce wonderful material on Biblical Archaeology. Please be careful how you share your opinions, especially when it is outside your area of expertise. I say this because in the response you say that the idea of the earth being only approximately 6000 years old is not biblical, well I think that it is a far stretch to say that the idea of the earth being millions of years old is biblical.

In fact, the idea of evolution is very non-biblical. According to Genesis, death entered the world through sin. According to evolution, death was before sin. The idea that death entered the world through sin is a foundational principle for Judaism and Christianity. No one has all the answers, we are not God. We must therefore be willing to share ideas openly, honestly and lovingly with one another. I hope and pray that I have not offended anyone on your staff. My goal is to share information so that we all might grow in our knowledge of a wonderfully loving and powerful God. God bless you and your work.

-Jeff Williams, Poquoson, VA

In this month's feature article Doug Ward discusses the Genesis 1 controversy.

–editor

Dinosaurs or Alligators and Hippos?

It was said that a 6,000 year old earth is not biblical. This is true. However, an earth millions of years old is also not biblical. There is as much evidence for a young earth as there is for an old one. In which case, the answer to this question may be a neutral one. I would like to suggest to sources for support: Job 40-41 as poetic descriptions of humans co-existing with dinosaurs (not poetic descriptions of alligators and hippos as some say) and ICR, Institute of Creation Research, as the other source.

-Kyle and Lara Schwendemann

Go Back to Genesis Again and Read It Properly!

I have had a look at the question and answers page on your web site. You have stated that the dinosaurs were around 65 million years ago. I strongly suggest that you remove this rubbish and speak truth only. You are accountable before God for all that you do and say. 

How many people have read this and have lost faith because of it? Go back to Genesis again and read it properly. God goes to a lot of trouble to spell out to us that the creation process took 6 days only and He rested on the 7th day. God clearly outlines exactly what a day is for us so that there is no confusion. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the world is young. Go to http://www.yfiles.com or http://www.drdino.com or the Creation Science web site for the evidence. Take your Bible literally and read only the King James Bible. You have no excuses. Also, He clearly states that before the flood all animals and people ate vegetable matter only, no meat. 

Have you ever wondered how the ancients were able to construct buildings with such enormous stone blocks, some of which cannot be moved with today's technology? There is much evidence to suggest that the ancients had far greater technology than we have today, were much bigger and far smarter. We have beasts of burden today. Could a large dinosaur lift a 200 ton block? I think so. Refer to a book by Jonathan Gray Dead Men's Secrets. I can give you the mailing address if you are interested. You are the editor of a biblical based archaeology web site. You should know these things. You have a responsibility to print the truth.

–Brian Deeker

Questions & Answers

Please feel free to submit short questions. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. Click here to submit a question to the editor.

Can Science and mt-DNA Prove the Bible False?

I have been told that science and "mtDNA" can prove the Bible false...is this true? I also wondered, is there evidence of a global flood, as portrayed in the story of Noah? And, lastly, are there really two contradictory accounts of the creation of man in Genesis?

–Dave Mamanakis

The Scientific method is a means of producing facts through the falsification of working hypotheses. Science has nothing to prove. If a scientist attempts to prove anything he or she is not "doing" science but has become an advocate. Theologians are advocates not scientists.

No one knows where mtDNA research will lead as this kind of research is in its infancy. There remain problems in instrumentation, sampling, and the fact that at least one study suggests that some mtDNA comes from fathers. There is, however, great promise in mtDNA research. While facts so derived may falsify some of the arguments put forward by various biblical interpreters it is unlikely that they will undermine either the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament.

Verifiable scientific evidence shows the earth to be quite old. Various life forms appeared upon the earth millions of years ago. Neither the suppositions of creation science nor the synthetic theory of evolution adequately explain the presence and nature of human beings. So long as creationists and evolutionists persist in advocacy rather than exegesis and science scholarly understanding in these areas will remain clouded. 

Does Genesis claim there was a global flood? Noah believed all the world was consumed but could this simply have been in reference to all the world Noah knew? Please refer to my answer to a viewer in Perspectives for April/June 1999 at
http://www.bibarch.com/perspectives/1999-AprJun.htm. Scroll down to Where in the World is Noah's Ark.

The problem lies in the hermeneutic one has in approaching the material and how he or she approaches the exegesis of the material. The first two verses of Genesis suggest that the earth is very old.

–editor

The Four Rivers of Eden

I am doing research to present a paper at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers next spring. My topic is going to be the rivers that are mentioned flowing from the Garden of Eden. I would like any information you might be able to give me on any research previously done on this subject and where it might be available.

-Randy H. Johnson

Genesis 2:10-14 mentions the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates rivers. Not all that long ago any serious scientific inquiry into the nature of the Garden of Eden and its associated rivers would have been met with scholarly ridicule. Nevertheless, researchers evidently have found the Pishon River which the Hebrew Scriptures describe as issuing forth from the Garden of Eden. James A. Sauer discusses the route of this river named the Kuwait River in "The River Runs Dry-Biblical Story Preserves Historical Memory" appearing in the July/August 1996 Biblical Archaeology Review. According to Sauer this river, detected by Shuttle Imaging Radar, is the best candidate yet for the Pishon River (Sauer 1996). 

An additional factor in considering the identity and location of these four rivers lies in fixing the boundaries of Eden and the extent of its garden. John H. Sailhamer argues in Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account that the Garden of Eden occupied the same area as the "Promised Land" of the Israelites. The implications are enormous. 

–editor

On Eden and Nod

Where was the garden of Eden and the land of Nod located?

–Simon Lee

Where is the Land of Nod? East of Eden doesn't quite cover it. Were there people there before Cain? And if not, where did Cain find his wife?

-L. Smith

As to the Garden of Eden please refer to The Four Rivers of Eden above. The Genesis account implies that the location of the Garden of Eden was Mesopotamia. This is the area of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. East of this area would likely place Cain in eastern Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Some believe Cain's wanderings could have taken him on to India and China.

As to the Land of Nod note that God condemned Cain as a murderer and sent him away to wander. The sense of the Hebrew at Genesis 4:16 is that the "land of Nod" was a land of wandering. Whether or not this land of wandering was the name of an actual place or a simple reference to his status as a wanderer-outcast from the family of Adam remains to be seen. He had to live in a "land of wandering." 

The classical answer to "Where did Cain find a wife?" is from his sisters. An anthropological answer is from humans outside the family of Adam. 

–editor

Sheep Shearing in Eden

How did Adam and Eve shear their sheep? or remove their fleeces?

–Lynette

The Hebrew Scriptures do not say, but we assume one at a time and very carefully, if they did so at all. Humor aside, the standard biblical chronologies place Adam and Eve about 4000 BCE signifying they lived during the fourth millennium BCE. At that time stone tools with highly refined edges provided a means for cutting as did copper tools. The discovery of a cache of these tools occurred in 1961 when P. Bar-Adon investigated a remote cave, on a cliff face in the Judean Desert in Nahal Mishmar", now known as the Cave of the Treasure." The artifacts included linen and woolen textiles. The latter are the only examples of Levantine woolen textiles known from this period. The cache also contained fragments of a wooden and bone loom, loom weights, implements for spinning thread, remnants of worked leather, and the like. The implication is that early sheep shearing would have been accomplished by cutting with razor-edge flint implements. 

–editor

Page last edited: 11/28/04 08:44 AM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often