The Gap Theory Has Gaps

GENESIS 1:1-5
1 In THE beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was 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.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIRST DAY.

Notice that all the events of verses 1-5 are summarized as, "...and the evening and the morning were the first day..."

There is no obvious break anywhere in the text of the first five verses. Everything in verses 1-5 is worded in such a way that the meaning that everything happened on the first day is possible.


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

It doesn't say, "In a beginning..." It says, "In the beginning..."

Genesis chapter one therefore doesn't necessarily describe two or more "beginnings" - it could just as well describe one beginning - the beginning.


2 And the earth was 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.

Notice it doesn't say, "And then the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..." as if this was a separate event which began some indefinitely long period after creation.

Rather, it simply says, "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..."

The Spirit of God may have moved upon the face of the waters as part of the creative work of the first day, the day in which the heaven and the earth were made.

The moving of the Spirit of God upon the face of the waters may therefore ahve coincided with the event of creation - the wording of the text does not necessitate that it was something that occurred only as an after-thought or as Plan B at some indeterminately long period of time after the heaven and the earth had already been created and had allegedly subsequently become without form and void.

Furthermore, the Spirit of God, who won't always strive, would not have continued moving upon the face of the waters for a long period of time with no purpose - He would have been moving upon the face of the waters with an imminent purpose - and that purpose would have been to continue the works of creation as they were to proceed on that first day.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The way the text is worded allows room for the interpretation that all of the events of verses 1-5 happened within one period of darkness followed by one period of light - a period called a "day" - the "first day".

The period of darkness mentioned before God said, "Let there be light", might not have lasted for an indefinitely long period of time - it may have been part of the 24-hour period called the "first day" - because, if the period of time called the "first day" had only began once God said, "Let there be light", then the light should have been followed by a period of darkness. But the Scripture does not say the darkness of the "first day" followed the light of the first day - rather, it says the light of the first day followed the darkness of the first day ("...and the evening and the morning...") The text of verses 1-5 mentions only one period of darkness followed by one period of light.

Furthermore, this entire period must have lasted for 24 hours not for an indefinitely long period of time - because, if the period of time called a "day" was longer than 24 hours, then all the plants which rely on photosynthesis for survival could not have survived.

It might all have happened therefore on the first day!

ISAIAH 45:18
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...

This verse doesn't necessarily prove that the earth must have become without form and void at some indefinitely long period of time after God first made the heaven and the earth.

Rather, it may simply show that God did not make the earth without purpose although during the early part of the first day of creation, the earth was without form and void until the works of the first day of creation progressed to completion. It was always God's intention to begin and complete creation in six days.

I'm writing this, not to make a needless issue out of it, but in hope of helping those who are making an issue out of it perhaps with not as much of a literary foundation for it as they might have thought.

Given the lack of concrete foundation for the Gap Theory, in the text of Genesis chapter one, there must be other reasons why people try to squeeze this theory into the Genesis story.

One reason might be that they are trying to explain the origin of demons. Another reason might be that they are trying to reconcile the Bible with the theory of an old earth.

There are solutions for those perceived dilemmas. But in any case, those aren't reasons enough to found a doctrine on a passage of text that could just as well be taken another way.