Sign up ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Gap theory seems to be based largely on translating Genesis 1:2 differently from the usual translations, eg. KJV:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was became 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.

Is this a sound translation? Why is was the more usual one?

share|improve this question

put on hold as off-topic by Flimzy, Nathaniel, Bear in a Studebaker, El'endia Starman 2 days ago

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions asking for the truth or validity of a particular doctrine or belief (aka Truth Questions), and questions asking Is X a Sin? are not a good fit for our site, due to their subjective nature, and the vast number of possible Christian opinions on such topics. See: We can't handle the truth" – Flimzy, Nathaniel, Bear in a Studebaker, El'endia Starman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

3 Answers 3

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The Hebrew verb "was" is in the Qal (indicative) perfect tense. "Became" is a fanciful translation. There's nothing wrong with fanciful translations and midrasch. But it's probably best to avoid basing tonnage of doctrine on midrasch or fancy.

There is an ambiguity in Hebrew about past or future actions, but that crops up when the IMperfect tense is used, not the perfect.

share|improve this answer
The verb in question, like so many other Hebrew words can be translated in a multitude of ways. The tense is only one indication of how to translate. There exists no 1:1 mapping between words in modern languages an biblical Hebrew. That being said. Any theory based upon so little evidence as a common, non-technical, word like "was" or "became" is unsubstantiated. It would be even if the precise translation was available. –  itpastorn Mar 11 '12 at 13:44

The Father is not Elohim, Elohim stands for god's, holy children. The son of men is not God. Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? There is only one spirit and this is God. How many holy spirits see you.Eph 4:4. There is one Spirit,..... not Elohim but Eloah what stands for one holy spirit.

share|improve this answer
This answer would be better if you could add references showing that this is a common understanding, and who teaches/believes it. On this site, we're not looking for personal interpretation, but rather focusing on what various Christian groups teach. See How we are different than other sites? and What makes a good supported answer? You may be right, and if so it should be easy to find references. –  David Dec 15 '13 at 19:15

Because the earth is no longer without form. When this was written, the earth was no longer without form.

The earth has form, as a testimony and to the Glory of God.

share|improve this answer
Jonathon whatever you are trying to say here seems to be getting lost on your audience. Perhaps you could give another stab at this? –  Caleb Sep 17 '11 at 20:09
Sorry, it's hard to participate on my android :) took me forever to type my answer lol I will attempt again when I get the chance. –  Ecommerce Consultant Sep 17 '11 at 21:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.