The Modern Creation Trilogy. Dr. Henry M. Morris

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of Genesis 1 is also strained and forced, rather than natural and normal. Thus, “Let there be light,” in verse 3 must be interpreted as “Let light pierce through the atmospheric debris following the cataclysm and again reach the earth’s surface.” Similarly, the simple statement of verse 16, “And God made two great lights . . . the stars also,” must be understood as saying, “God removed all the cloud contamination still remaining from the cataclysm so that now the sun, moon, and stars could be seen again on earth.” Similar strained translations are needed for other passages.

      Furthermore, the translation required by the gap theory for Genesis 1:2 — “The earth became [instead of ‘was’] waste and void” — is itself highly questionable. There is admittedly a difference of opinion among Hebrew scholars about whether this is a permissible translation, but it should be noted that practically all the generally recognized and standard Old Testament translations render the verb “was” instead of “became.” It is the regular Hebrew verb of being (hayetha), instead of the verb that is normally used to denote a change of state (haphak). Although hayetha can, under some circumstances, be translated as “became” instead of “was,” such a meaning must be clearly required by the context. In at least 98 percent of its occurrences in the Pentateuch it is properly translated as “was.” The question then is whether the internal context in Genesis 1:1–5 requires or justifies this unusual translation. Advocates of the gap theory have not yet shown this to be the case. In fact, the use of the connective “and” (waw) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 seems to imply that the state described in the second verse followed immediately upon the action described in the first verse. Verse 2 clearly consists of an explanation as to how the earth was at creation, not how it became later.

      Actually, every verse in Genesis 1 (except the first) begins with “and” (Hebrew waw), implying continuous action. Many times a verse amplifies the meaning of the verse prior to it; thus there is no time implied at all. There seems to be no legitimate justification for allowing a gap between verses one and two. The entire chapter is one long run-on sentence!

      It is recognized that a few Hebrew scholars argue vigorously that “became” should be used in verse 2. When experts and specialists disagree, it should perhaps be left an open question. Even if there is such a “gap” between the two verses, there is no contextual justification for understanding it as a gap of long duration. It could just as well have been, say, a minute or an hour, as five billion years.

      Similarly, there is nothing in verse 2 to imply a great cataclysmic judgment from God. The initial aspect of creation as described in that verse was not “perfect,” in the sense that it was “complete,” until God pronounced it complete and “very good” at the end of the six days of His creative work. But it was perfect for His immediate purpose.

      One would be justified in concluding, therefore, that the “gap” exegesis of Genesis 1:1–2 is very tenuous.

      5. Critique of Proof-Texts for the Gap Theory

      Although Genesis 1:1–2 does not lend itself well to the gap theory in its immediate context, there are several suggested proof-texts for the theory that have been adduced from other parts of the Bible. These must now be examined. Regardless of these proof-texts, one should not forget the overwhelming scientific and theological difficulties inherent in the idea that the geological ages occurred between the two verses, and that these ages terminated in a global cataclysm. This theory should not be used to explain the geological ages or to justify a great age for the earth. The gap theory creates many serious scientific problems and solves none.

      With this warning in mind, let us see whether the proof-texts really do require a gap interpretation. The first of these is Genesis 1:28, where God commands Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” The verb translated as “replenish” is the Hebrew male, which means simply “fill” or “be filled” or a similar expression. It is so translated in all the many other places where it is used, with only a few very questionable exceptions.

      Jeremiah 4:23 is also frequently cited: “I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.” This is quoted in a context of divine judgment, and so it is said that Genesis 1:2 likewise reflects such a judgment. It is quite certain, however, that the divine judgment described in Jeremiah 4:23 has nothing to do with Genesis, except that it uses similar expressions. It is a prophecy of a coming judgment on the land of Israel (see Jer. 4:14, 22, 31), not a history of past judgment on the earth. The words “earth” and “land” are the same in Hebrew. One can translate the verse correctly as follows: “I beheld the land, and lo it was waste and empty, and the sky, and it had no light.” This prophecy was to be fulfilled during the coming “day of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7).

      Another proof-text advanced is Isaiah 24:1: “Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.” Again, in the context, this verse is quite obviously a prophecy of the coming judgment upon the land and the people of Israel, not upon a hypothetical race of pre-Adamites.

      Their most important proof-text is Isaiah 45:18: “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain [the phrase ‘in vain’ is the Hebrew tohu, the same as ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2], he formed it to be inhabited.”

      The argument goes that, since the above verse says that God created not the earth tohu, and since the earth of Genesis 1:2 was tohu, therefore, the latter could not have been the earth as it was created in Genesis 1:1. The inference is that the earth became tohu by the pre-Adamic cataclysm.

      Again, this interpretation requires lifting the verse out of its context. The verses before and after indicate that the subject at hand is Israel and God’s purposes and promises to His people. That is, just as the Lord had a purpose in creating the earth, so He has a purpose for Israel. In Isaiah 45:17, the preceding verse, He says, “Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.”

      In support of this tremendous promise, God reminds the Israelites of His mighty creation itself, which was not without purpose. He “formed it to be inhabited,” and He accomplished that purpose, creating and redeeming (in Christ) a race of men in His own image. Just so, He will accomplish His purpose for His special people, Israel.

      The fact that His full purpose in creation was not completed on the first day of creation is irrelevant. He “created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited,” and He accomplished that purpose. The word tohu has several shades of meaning, depending on context. It occurs 20 times and is translated 10 different ways in the King James translation. The context in Isaiah 45:18 justifies the translation “in vain” or “without purpose.” The context in Genesis 1:2 warrants “without form” or “structureless.”

      There is no conflict, therefore, between Isaiah 45:18 and the statement of an initial formless aspect to the created earth in Genesis 1:2. The former can properly be understood as follows: “God created it not [to be forever] without form; he formed it to be inhabited.” As described in Genesis 1, He proceeded to bring beauty and structure to the formless elements, and then inhabitants to the waiting lands.

      It should be remembered that Isaiah 45:18 was written many hundreds of years after Genesis 1:2, and that its context deals with Israel, not a pre-Adamic cataclysm. Such an isolated and incidental verse, which is easily capable of an alternate interpretation, is hardly an adequate base on which to build a theory of such tremendous import as that of a presumed primeval cataclysm.

      Two verses in the New Testament have occasionally been used to support the gap theory. One is 2 Corinthians 4:6: “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts.” The darkness in the heart results СКАЧАТЬ