The Genesis gap and Re-creation

Question

I have stumbled on this essay (The Genesis Gap) on the site ichthys from which I am quoting a passage:

....5. The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).

III. Creation and Re-Creation: Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the heavens and the earth.

The author , who seems extremely competent and well-informed, holds up the idea that there have been 2 separate creation of the world, the original one of Eden, followed by the revolt of the angel(s) which caused the revolt of man , and a second, the actual earth and universe, after the first had been destroyed

.....As we have seen, however, the second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2, is split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative construction. Verse two propels us untold eons forward in time from the original, awesome act of creation, and moves us to the other side of the Genesis Gap, describing for us the state of the universe as it existed before God re-created the earth:

But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters. Genesis 1:2

Original creation had been marred by Satan's revolt, and cast into darkness by God's judgment upon the rebellious angels. In order to make the universe habitable once more for creatures with physical bodies (the attempted possession of which was a major issue in Satan's pre-fall propaganda, it will be remembered from Part 1 of our study), a re-creation of the earth was essential. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3, the account of the seven days, is a description of this renewal of the heavens and the earth. The objective behind this process of the seven days is also quite clear: the creation of Man. Everything God accomplishes within the period of re-creation is specifically designed to make life supportable for this His second category of creature possessing free will:

1. The Seven Days of Re-Creation....

the essay consists of four extended articles which make an easy and interesting reading. I have never heard of this hypothesis, and ask you expert to give an assessment of the reliability of the quotations but most of all ond the validity of the theory.

It makes a lot of sense, and surely solves a lot of problems arising from the usual interpretation of the Bible description, in which the presence of satan in the garden is inexplicable, unjustifiable, unbelievably illogical and totally absurd.

But the main problem is that a second re-creation is absolutely necessary because it is literally impossible that this material world with decaying matter and inert mass etc, can possibly have been the location of Eden. Has this idea ever gained currency? what are its weak points ?

Answer 1

There is a reason this guy sounds like he is privy to some other revelation about two creations we all don't know about: what he is saying is nowhere actually taught in the text. Of course any number of theories can be read into Genesis' ambiguous statements all too easily.

Let's look at what he says, highlighting everywhere he assumes what he's trying to prove:

The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).

III. Creation and Re-Creation: Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the heavens and the earth.

.....As we have seen, however, the second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2, is split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative construction. Verse two propels us untold eons forward in time [ha!] from the original, awesome act of creation, and moves us to the other side of the Genesis Gap, describing for us the state of the universe as it existed before God re-created the earth:

But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters. Genesis 1:2

Original creation had been marred by Satan's revolt, and cast into darkness by God's judgment upon the rebellious angels. In order to make the universe habitable once more for creatures with physical bodies (the attempted possession of which was a major issue in Satan's pre-fall propaganda, it will be remembered from Part 1 of our study), a re-creation of the earth was essential. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3, the account of the seven days, is a description of this renewal of the heavens and the earth. The objective behind this process of the seven days is also quite clear: the creation of Man. Everything God accomplishes within the period of re-creation is specifically designed to make life supportable for this His second category of creature possessing free will:

The Seven Days of Re-Creation....

(brackets mine)

That's pretty embarrassing. As you can see, he is just coming to Genesis with a doctrine of two creations, and then reading it into the maleable first chapter. There is nothing to refute—if you already accept his doctrine, Genesis has to be read in light of it; if not, you'll not actually find two creations in Genesis anywhere.

A key mark of heretics is peculiar translations of particular verses ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" comes to mind).

Notice how he translates Genesis 1:2 to suit his doctrine: "But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled."

This is laughable. For starters, תהו and בהו don't mean 'ruined and despoiled.' He needs them to mean that for his doctrine of a former world having been destroyed by evil or something. Particularly heinous/laughable is translating one of these words 'despoiled.' Despoiled, according to Merriam-Webster, means:

to strip of belongings, possessions, or value

Needless to say, this well exceeds the basic meaning of the word, and implies some agent which brought such desolation about, but which is nowhere actually indicated in the text.

But more greviously, he claims verse 2 is " split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative." This is, to put it lightly, complete garbage. For a start, in Hebrew ו wa (and/but) can be either adversative or copulative—and most of the time it is copulative (and; even, in the case of an appositive usage). Whether to translate/understand this as and or but is purely based on context, and how you understand the passage in light of it. So to beg the question and translate this as 'but' because (he has assured us) there is an extreme 'adversative, abrupt' part of the story to be told, is nonsense.

He claims this desolate state was, not before God has formed things in it, but it had 'come to be' this way—something nowhere stated in the text. Here he translates יהתה ([she] was—referring to the feminine noun ארץ meaning earth) as 'she became.' While this word can mean this in other contexts, there is no contextual reason when one reads the text to infer a previously 'un-desolate' earth! It's clear with the 'in the beginning' we are getting the run down of the creation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What isn't clear is that between this sentence and the next, this had been ruined by evil and so had 'become' this way. As you read the next few verses it becomes evident that this is just its state before He marked out seas and the land and created trees and animals on it.

I call this 'concordance translating,' where someone picks up a nice little concordance and fancies themselves a translator, and begins to assure us of new meanings of already understood texts—not so coincidentally coinciding with their new theology, which is on offer. If you want this showcased in an entire translation of the Bible, read the NWT. It is the most wooden, stick your foot in the door of every 'well its possible to translate it this way,' theologically driven, non-translations out there.

Answer 2

This theory of Genesis Gap and Recreation would be fascinating if you read it from the site of ichthys.

The focus is only on two verse Genesis1:1 and Genesis1:2

Your question is asking for three things:

1."I have never heard of this hypothesis, and ask you expert to give an assessment of the reliability of the quotations but most of all ond the validity of the theory."

From the premise of your last statement springs two more questions;

"But the main problem is that a second re-creation is absolutely necessary because it is literally impossible that this material world with decaying matter and inert mass etc, can possibly have been the location of Eden."

2. Has this idea ever gained currency? 3.what are its weak points ?

To answer your question if the theory is acceptable and believable. I think it would be difficult to believe the narration of the interpretation just basing it in the Hebrew word "Tohu wa-bohu (תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ)" that appears in Genesis1:2.

From wikipidia this is the explanation of that theory;

Tohu wa-bohu (תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ), is a Biblical Hebrew phrase found in the Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1:2) that describes the condition of the earth (eretz) immediately before the creation of light in Genesis 1:3.

Numerous interpretations of this phrase are made by various theological sources. The KJV translation of the phrase is "without form, and void", corresponding to LXX ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, "unseen and unformed".

Text וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם‬ Genesis 1:2, (Westminster Leningrad Codex)[1]

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Genesis 1:2, English translation (New International Version)[2]

"The words tohu and bohu also occur in parallel in Isaiah 34:11, where King James Version translates with the words "confusion" and "emptiness".(Genesis1:2)

The two Hebrew words are properly segolates, spelled tohuw and bohuw.[3] Hebrew tohuw translates to "wasteness, that which is laid waste, desert; emptiness, vanity; nothing".[4] tohuw is frequently used in Isaiah in the sense of "vanity", but bohuw occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible (outside of Genesis 1:2, the passage in Isaiah 34:11 mentioned above,[5] and in Jeremiah 4:23, which is a reference to Genesis 1:2), its use alongide tohu being mere paronomasia, and is given the equivalent translation of "emptiness, voidness".[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

Strong's Concordance tohu: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness Original Word: תֹּ֫הוּ Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: tohu Phonetic Spelling: (to'-hoo) Short Definition: waste

Englishman's Concordance Strong's Hebrew 8414 Genesis 1:2 HEB: וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ NAS: The earth was formless and void, KJV: was without form, and void; INT: the earth was was formless and void and darkness

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8414.htm

Now from the definition is seems to be acceptable as Genesis 1:2 mentioned "the earth was formless and void".But the difficulty of acceptance is from the theory itself that God created a formless earth and void and then it was destroyed by the angels revolt.As nowhere in Genesis1:2 mentioned an angels revolt or the angels were already created in that particular passage.

This theory is hard to believe as it contradicts the Apostolic and Church Father's Teaching the famous one is St.Augustine. And ofcourse for 2000 years the Traditional explanation of a "seven days creation" never mentioned this theory of Genesis gap and Re-creation.

Genesis1:1 can be best understood in Hebrew Tetragammaton in the word "In the Beginning" or "Bereshit"

which has a hidden meaning when the Hebrew aplhabet symbols is translated:

The word "Bereshit" hidden meaning is:

"The Son of Almighty God offered His Life on the Cross and pour out His graces towards the Sea"

Link video of John Kostik:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmnUkNT55gU

From the Hebrew word "Bereshit" we can see clearly that Genesis1:1 is the Divine Plan of Man's Salvation before everything was created it is the "blueprint".

The next verse which is the basis of the theory in question Genesis1:2

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters."(Genesis1:2)

I found on CSE a good answer relating this verse at the Annunciation in Luke1:35;

New American Standard 1977

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.(Luke1:35)

This is a much biblically accepted interpretation before Genesis1:3 the Day of Creation starts.

Why?

It coincides with Gospel of John firmly that nothing was created or existed until God Divine thought forms the Annunciation Plan in eternity.

Genesis 1:2 is speaking of the Holy Spirit forming the Logos in the waters of Womb of Mary.

John 1:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.(John1:1-3)

And John1:1-3 is supported by Collosians1:16

Colossians 1:16 New International Version (NIV)

"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

In closing, to answer your question if this theory is valid, can be accepted or had gained a wide acceptance already and to add to your inquiry what are the weakness. From biblical standpoint and basing from Church Historical traditional widely accepted teaching on "Seven Days Creation" both from Catholic and Christian faith this theory will be hard to accept, on one major consideration only the question of "Teaching Authority". As Jesus only given the Teaching Authority to Apostles and gave the Key to the Kingdom only to Peter.

Besides the Genesis gap & Re-creation Theory will have difficulty contradicting 1Timothy3:15 when it comes to the Truth in matters of Faith and Divine Revelation.

1 Timothy 3:15 (Douay-Rheims)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Godbless!

Answer 3

"Has this idea ever gained currency? what are its weak points ?"

The idea you refer to is called the Gap Theory, and it is called this, because of the theory that there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Has this theory ever gained currency/acceptance? Yes, but as one would imagine, it's a small subgroup of the view which denies the literal days of creation - and it's certainly in the minority of Evangelical protestant groups.

In the US, Baptist is the the biggest denomination of evangelical protestants and along with many other evangelicals - hold to a literal view of creation as held by Nazarenes, Bible Methodists, 7th Day Adventists, most Assembly of God, most Pentecostals, most Church of God, Free-will Baptists and most Wesleyan and non-Calvinist groups.

What are it's weak points?

• This is a classic textbook example of what is referred to by Bible scholars and pastors as "One verse theology" which warns against taking a single verse and building an entire doctrine or theological viewpoint based on one verse - while totally ignoring other passages that shed light on or even refute the one verse.

The entire kerfluffle is literally based on one phrase "became" in Genesis 1:2, with the notion being that in the original Hebrew, it says "the earth became without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep" and from there, they make a giant leap of eisegesis - reading something into the text that is not there.
From there they extrapolate that God doesn't make things void and formless, and it is further assumed by some that this is the most likely time slot for the rebellion of the angels, - just because scripture doesn't say exactly when this happened - so it's an argument from silence.

• It should be noted here, that one of the most fundamental principles of solid Biblical interpretation is that we always cross-reference and search what other scriptures say about a topic, and thus - scripture interprets scripture.
  Not only does this theory involve conjecture and eisegesis, but it ignores other clear passages that teach a literal seven day creation.

The entire doctrine of the sabbath which is practiced by Protestants and Catholics alike around the world, is based on the creation account of six days defined by evening and morning, and a day of rest.
The notion that these were vast eons or epochs is not only directly contrary to the clear words of scripture, but it totally disregards the fact that Genesis is categorized as History, and even secular scholars agree that the style of Genesis is not like poetry or wisdom genre.
The notion that we should work for six unknown, indefinite periods of time, and then rest for an unknown, indefinite period of time is only surpassed by the ludicrous idea that we should all work for sixty years and then rest for ten.

It also should be noted that this view contradicts the Biblical view of 6000 year history for humanity followed by the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ.
This is perfectly illustrated by the concept of bookends, Genesis and Revelation - which is also a mirror or bookend of the Sabbath and creation - when all will be restored to like it was in the beginning.

God through His servants foretold this period repeatedly. It was the hope of Israel’s prophets throughout much of the nation’s history, especially during periods of decline and captivity.This same hope was shared by the apostles as they questioned Christ about the restoration of Israel’s ancient kingdom. Before His ascension to heaven, His disciples asked Him, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). The disciples eagerly expected to see the Messiah’s rule begin at that time. They knew the promise of a restoration foretold by so many of the prophets.

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/jesus-christs-1000-year-reign-on-earth