Well then, let's have a look at it; see if it is so or not. Shall we? Below is the original post and its thesis.
If Gap:THEN amount of
time uncertain=
not revealed how old
Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." THERE IS A TIME LAPSE, A GAP, between the events in Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.There could be millions of years between the two verses. No one knows for how many years the earth was laid waste.
Genesis 1:2 , in the King James, reads, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep...."
The word "was" should properly be translated "became," as we see from the oldest manuscripts below:
(1) Chaldee - became desert and empty.
(2) Septuagint - became unfurnished and empty.
(3) Aramaic - became ruined and uninhabited.
(4) Vulgate - became dreary and empty.
We do know from Isaiah 45:18 that God did not create the earth in a state of waste to begin with. "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, he formed it to be inhabited...." by Dr. A. Ray Stanford
Games G gives us three verses Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 with Isaiah 45:18. As his interpretive theory has it: in Gen.1:1 a habitable earth is created and an unrevealed amount of time transpires: in v.2 because
was should be translated
became Then we are to insert some form of a desert scape (Chaldea), un-furnishment and emptying (Septuagint), a ruination and depopulation (Aramaic), or some kind of dreary
ization and emptying (Vulgate). Then the rest of the Genesis narrative picks up from that point in v.2. Now, because we are in wonder what to make of this, Is.45:18 is presented with the due citation of a Dr. A. Ray Standford. This verse is the proof text for the verb and verb-tense change hypothesized. Is that fair enough? That's about all I see there. Well, you do say
laid waste and did
not create in a state of waste to begin with at the start and finish of your article. So now, let us test it!
Rule one in interpretive efforts: CONTEXT is KING. We have the context of the Gen.1:1-2:3 in which to test this first. And then we might have any scriptural teaching anywhere else, that might be fitted into this Good-habitable/destroyed-uninhabitable/remade-good scenario. A big issue is weather or not
was should rather be translated
became. That ought first to be generally demonstrated (the possibility of it), then the desirability of it (assuming that
was is also possible). Last, it is quite fair to use Is.45 as that larger context of Bible teaching. Will this interpretive idea fly? let's see!
From Gen.1:2-5 we have light created to shine on a mass of stuff called tohume,
the deep, out of which the heavens are separated in their midst Gen.1:6-8,
then: the dry land from waters below, and plants in the new-earth Gen.1:9-13,
next: to the new-heavens God creates the light holders (sun, moon, and stars) and from that point the light comes from those, marking time Gen.1:14-19,
after this: air, sea and land animals in a couple of days Gen.1:20-31,
last: the Sabbath is given. Now of great import is the tohume; out of its mass all the heavens of space and the physical bodies that populate it, as well as all dry land with the plants and animals are developed by creation and forming which gives it meaning and purpose in God's design. Assuming we have a reforming, does
"became desert and empty", do justice to that? How about,
"became unfurnished and empty"? This one possibly can:
"became ruined and uninhabited." The last one is pretty funny, I think:
"became dreary and empty"; not fit for party-animals.
Taking the only one that could possible work with the context let's see how good it does! Tohume=uninhadited? Too obviously, yes. Tohume=ruined? I don't think so. There is no form to it at all, and the immensity of its void is way too vast to imply a simple ruining. If any one thinks to use this interpretation to account for fossils and radio-dating procedures, then Tohume stands in the way of that, at least in the proceeding context. It's not looking to good. But "was" and the tohume being called
heaven and earth, as it held them in its bosom, it a natural for the context.
Let's look at Isaiah, for even though there are problems with the
"ruined" idea, it might be required to make sense of Isaiah. Cyrus, a Persian king, is addressed by God as well as his people that Cyrus will allow to escape and rebuild Jerusalem. Lots of great truths are expressed there, and creation is used to mark the difference of the true God with idols:
"12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." Among such references is v.18,
"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, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." The point in the Isaiah context is as creator he can do these things with his people who he has a plan for in their land. This is for Cyrus and God's people. OK, so does it teach a ruination of a once-inhabited world into a
tohume that had to be made over? Well, how about just supporting the
became as opposed to the
was? God created the heavens and earth in 6 days (complete scriptural agreement on that). If he recreated it, it was uninhabitable for 5 days, so the 4 days were decreasingly formless and if they are allowed, then day one's
Tohume must be allowable also. That pretty much negates the use of Isaiah to support
"become". Neither God, nor Isaiah, meant any such thing. He created the formless mass and then worked on it starting with light to bring out his design: for the purpose that man might live in it. There is just no rational consistent reason to put a gap there. If you study it out, neither the Genesis context nor the Bible context will allow it. It is a force fit that breaks down on close examination.
If you would like to read an article giving the natural reading of the Genesis text a chance to speak for itself and yet take in the science implications, I recommend you to 1)
Creation’s 1st day: Material and light, 2)
Creation's 2nd Day, 3)
Creation’s 3rd Day: earth/seas/plants, 4)
Creation’s forth Day: Solar system/Deep space, and lastly 5)
CREATION’S DAY FIFTH: Life in seas-n-Life on the wing. All articles I have posted in Bible Study Hall forum here at TJ. Have a look at them. The context (both, narrative and biblical) I believe is not violated in it. It is my own work...leave a comment.
