Debunking The Anti-Gap "Grammatical Argument"

[abelcainsbrother]

I admit this is the area I'm weak in making a case for the Gap Theory and that is explaining how to make the case for the Gap Theory from a technical Hebrew scholarly way.So I could learn from this thread.

But here are some things I've noticed reading through this thread and it is he is sighting Hebrew scholars/theologians who believed,accepted and made a case for the Gap Theory so whether or not you agree or not you cannot say no Hebrew scholars/theologians held to or do not hold to the Gap Theory there are many that have and he has sighted some of them. If you were living before the 1970's you would be in the minority if you rejected the Gap Theory,you would've been looked at how you look at us now. Because most bible theologians were Gap Theorists,some were day age,but there were no young earth creationists.They were all old earth.

[Jac3510]

Ok. Prepare for a boring post. I'm going to give you guys a basic lesson in Hebrew.

First, two extremely tedious points you probably already know about the language.

1. It is written right to left, not left to right.
2. In the original language, there were no vowels. It was all consonants. The vowel sounds are presented with little dots and marks under and above the consonants and were added a few hundred years ago to help with pronunciation.

With that said, I want you to actually be able to read Hebrew itself for this post. Rather than trying to learn the whole alphabet, here are the letters you need to know:

• א - Aleph (doesn't really make a sound--just uses the vowel beneath it. But, for starters, think about it as a "e" sound, as in "get")
  ב - Bet (pronounced, bait). Says "b" as in bat:
  ץ - Gimmel. Says "g" as in "goat"
  ה - hey. Says "h" as in "hat"
  ו - Waw (in modern Hebrew, pronounced "Vav"). Says "w" as in "water" (or, modern, "v" as in "van")
  י - Yod (as in YODa). Says "y" as in "yellow"
  ל - Lamed (pronounced LA-med). Says "l" as in "language"
  מ/ם - Mem (pronounced "maim"). Says "m" as in "milk." There are two forms of this letter. It is written as ם when it comes at the end of the word. Otherwise, it is written as מ
  ר - Resh (pronounced "raysh). Says "r" as in "Rick"
  ש - sin/shin (prounounced "seen" and "sheen"). This represents two letters and it either says "silent" or "sh" as in "shout." Which it is depends on which word. The vowel-pointing system we are not talking about lets readers distinguish which letter if they don't have the word memorized.
  ת - Tav (pronounced "tov"). Says "t" as in "tight"

That's all the letters you need to know to read Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew. Now here are the extra letters to also be able to read Genesis 1:2

• ח - Chet (hard to pronounce in English. Makes that "German sounding" H with the back of the throat)
  ך - Kaf. There is another version of this letter, just like there are two version of מ. This is the version that goes at the end of the word. It is pronounced "k" as in "kite."
  נ - Nun (pronounced "noon"). Says "n" as in "now"
  ע - Ayin (pronounced AH-yen). Like א, it takes the sound of the vowel. But for now, think of it as a short a, as in "apple"
  פ - Pey (pronounced "pay"). Says "p" as in "pretty"

So that is 16 letters you need to know. I really encourage you to spend a few minutes learning those letters. When you feel like you know those, here are the vocabulary words for Genesis 1:1. I'll give you the actual Hebrew word followed by a phonetic spelling (I am NOT transliterating!). You should be able to follow the word if you know the letters above

• בראשית - "Beresheet." - In the beginning. Composed of two words: ב ("beh," preposition meaning "in") and ראשית ( meaning "the beginning")
  ברא - "Barah" - He/She/It created
  אלהים - "Elohim" - God
  את - "et" - untranslatable. This is the direct object marker. Tells us what receives the action of the verb.
  השמים - "HashaMYeem" - the heavens. Composed of two words: ה ("hey," the definite article) and שמים (meaning "heavens"). Means "the heavens"
  ואת - "Weh-et" - two words, ו ("weh," translated in this case "and") and the aforementioned את.
  הארץ - "Ha-ARE-ets" - two words: ה (the definite article again) and ארץ (pronounced "AIR-ets" when not prefixed by the definite article). Means "the earth"

So, now, you should be able to read Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew! Here it is:

• בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

Exciting!

Now, a few points of grammar with making here. First, note that general word order. This is very common with Hebrew. You have the verb coming BEFORE the subject: ברא אלהים. Woodenly translated, this would be "He created God." But that's obviously not right. The word ברא comes before its subject. The subject is אלהים. So we translate it "God created." The word את gives us the object of the verb. It tells us what was created: השמים and also הארץ. Notice that the two are separated by another את, but this second את is prefixed by the letter ו. This is that "waw" everybody talks so much about.

So ו is itself a conjunction translated a lot of ways. It is usually rendered "and" in your English Bibles. I would encourage you, though, to think of it less as an English conjunction and more as having a function. Much as את has a function (to identify the object of the verb), ו has a function, too. Its job is to connect two ideas together. The nature of that connection is determined by several things. In the present case, being affixed to את, it is just connecting another object of the verb. So God creates two things: השמים and הארץ.

It is also worth pointing that while English is big on tenses (present, past, and future, and all of their derivatives), Hebrew is not. Put simply, Hebrew does not have tense. It has what grammarians call "aspect." There are basically two aspects in Hebrew verbs: perfect and imperfect. Perfect verbs are usually translated with the past tense. They picture an action as completed or whole. So ברא has a perfect aspect. It could be translated "he created," but it could also be translated "he has created" or "he had created" or whatever. It's up to context to decide what translation is best. Now we don't have any imperfect verbs in this verse (or in the next, for that matter), but suppose we had the imperfect version of that word, it would be translated something like "he will create" or "he was creating" or "he creates," etc. The aspect here is ongoing, continual, etc.

PLEASE DO NOT OVERREAD THAT. The aspect only speaks of how the action looks from the perspective of the author, and that from within the sentence itself. Never base a theological statement on aspect alone! There are WAY too many other variables to consider.

In any case, what this means in our verse is that the creation of the world is being considered as a completed act. And this is a good example of the warning above. This doesn't mean that all of creation was completed. Some YECs have tried to use that to say that Gen 1:1 is a summary statement and everything that follows explains how it happens. That's just not true. The point is just that it's a simple action. What happened here? God created the heavens and the earth. Simple.

Moving on to verse two. Here's your vocabulary for this verse:

• והארץ - you already know this word. It is just הארץ with the ו prefixed.
  היתה - "HI-yah-tah" - Means "it was"
  תהו - "toe-hoo" - Means "uninhabited," as in a wasteland
  ובהו - "wa-boe-hoo" - Two words: בהו ("bow-hoo") meaning "uninhabitable" and prefixed with ו
  וחשך - "weh-hoe-shek" - two words: חשך ("hoe-shek") meaning "darkness" and prefixed with ו
  על-פני - "al-pen-ay" - a two word idiom. על ("al") means "to" or "toward" or "before" and פני ("pen-ay") means "face." So these two words are an idiom of sorts that literally means "to the face of" and therefore means "upon."
  תהום - "teh-home" - refers to "the deep" of the oceans. There is an etymological connection with the Tiamat, the primordial ocean goddess.
  ורוח - two words: רוח ("roo-oc"), means "spirit," "breath," or "wind." Prefixed with ו
  מרחפת - "Mair-eh-hef-et," means "it hovers"
  המים - "ha-mai-eem" - Two words: מים, meaning "waters" and prefixed with the definite article ה

And now you should be able to read all of Genesis 1:2. Here it is:

• והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים

Cool!

So let's take these together. You get:

• בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים

And let's consider some grammatical points.

Let's start with the phrase תהו ובהו. Notice first this is not preceded by את. We wouldn't expect that because the verb היתה does not have a direct object. What follows would be a predicate adjective, which is what we get in תהו ובהו. But notice these two words are joined together again with the ו, just like השמים ואת הארץ were. It's hard to miss the word-play here. These words rhyme and it makes for pretty reading if you say it out loud: TOE-hoo wa-BOE-hoo. The meanings are closely related and picture the initial creation as a chaotic wasteland, completely barren and uninhabitable. (For your devotional purposes, that would have meaning to Hebrews when just outside the cities, the wilderness was really inhospitable to life!)

Notice there are two verbs in v2. The first is היתה. We've already noted this means "was" and has a stative aspect. (That' by the way, is the basis for gap theorists to argue it could be translated "it became"). The other is מרחפת. I won't go into the various stems in Hebrew verbs other than to say that there are seven of them. (If you want to learn about them, here's a page that might help.) For what it is worth, היתה is a simple qal (pronouned "Cal") and is the simplest form of the verb. מרחפת is in the piel stem. Were it in the qal, it would have been רחף (pronounced "rah-haf"), which means "to shake" or "to tremble."

Anyway, this is important because it gets to the ideas of mainline verbs and offline verbs I was talking about before. Notice that these verbs are in a perfect aspect. (That's why we don't translate them, "was becoming" and "was hovering," respectively.) Now, in Hebrew, when you tell a story, you have the mainline verb with a perfect aspect. You then advance the story, chronologically speaking, with an imperfect verb prefixed by the waw. You see that at the beginning of verse 3. It starts with the word:

• ויאמר

These are all letters you know. The word is pronounced "wa-yo-MARE" at means "He said." It is composed of two words: יאמר, which means, "he is saying," and the prefixed word ו. The word יאמר has an imperfect aspect. If you are curious, the qal (simple perfect) version of this word is אמר, which means "he spoke" or "he said." When you prefix the simple qal with the י (and make some vowel changes we aren't covering), then you get this version of the word. It's the imperfect.

So why don't we translate verse 3, "And God was saying, 'Let there be light!'" After all, ו is "and" and יאמר is "he was saying." Right? Here's the trick. In Hebrew, when you prefix an imperfect verb (יאמר, in this case), with the waw, the aspect is reversed. That gives יאמר a perfect aspect so that we translate it "he said." And if you are curious, the same rule applies if you prefix the waw to a simple qal verb. So if Genesis 1:1 had said, בראשית וברא אלהים, we would have translated it, "In the beginning, God was creating . . ."

So why do all this? Because this is, again, the way you move a story forward. Remember that the normal Hebrew word order is verb-subject-object. When you want to tell what happens next (temporally speaking), you use the imperfect version of the word and prefix the ו, which gives that verb a perfect aspect. First this happened, then that happened. That is why this is called a waw-consecutive.

Notice that neither of our verbs in verse 2 have the waw-consecutive. And why not? Because they do not advance the story forward. What is happening is that the two verbs are giving us background information about the main verb we are discussing. In this case, the main verb comes from verse 1, ברא. That is why that the ו in this case is prefixed not to a verb but to a noun (הארץ). And this goes back to what the meaning of the waw is. It is NOT "and." Remember that words have a function in a language. "And" is an English word with a certain function. A lot of that function overlaps the Hebrew word ו, but it isn't a 1:1 correspondence.

Now, there is a lot more correspondence between the meaning of the Hebrew word ו and the Greek word και (kai, pronounced like it looks). I don't want to spend much time talking about that word, but suffice it to say here it is also a connecting word and it is up to the context to tell us what kind of connection it is (that is right, και doesn't mean "and" either). So when the LXX renders ו as και, they knew what they were doing. It's English translators, especially of the KJV, that constantly rendered the και as "and" that made the mistake.

The question, then, is the nature of the connection between והארץ (and its following clause ) and verse 1. Well we've already seen that it is not a temporal connection. These verbs are offline. Remember that mainline verbs are perfective, sure, but they are usually in the form of a waw-consecutive. It's very common for offline verbs to use a simple stative. They tell us something about the nature of the action. This is very clear with the verb מרחפת. I don't see any gap-gappists claiming that there is a gap between "and darkness was upon the deep" and "and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters"! Notice that the waw is prefix to a noun again (just like it did at the beginning of the verse). In this case, it is prefixed to רוח. It would have been confusing to use the normal verb-subject-object routine and prefix the waw to מרחפת. The aspectual reversal would have created an odd picture. But as it stands, we have a very simple picture. Three things were all true: the earth was uninhabited and uninhabitable; darkness was on the waters; and the Spirit of God hovered over the deep. That's not three things that happened one after the other. The waw doesn't permit that reading. Rather, the three ideas are connected (that's what the waw does), and in this case, the connection is conceptual, not temporal.

That's why all grammarians now recognize Gen 1:2 as being circumstantially related to 1:1. It's just extremely obvious. The mainline verb is "God created." We then have several connecting ideas--the earth (connection 1) was uninhabited and uninhabitable; the darkness was on the water (connection 2); and the Spirit of God hovered on the waters (connection 3). Notice that ALL THREE of those conditions are preceded by a waw! (Maybe we should all be gap gap gap theorists, and suggest three gaps in that verse alone!!!) Anyway, then we see verse 3 begin with another mainline verb, just as expected: "And God said."

SO

I know this has been very long. I REALLY hope you all spend some time working through this. It really is worth it, and it sets the stage for a proper understanding of the theology of Genesis 1. The point is that it is less than impossible to have a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. That's just not how Hebrew grammar works.

Now, please, I don't know what else I could possibly say. But are there any clarifying questions anybody has?

[jalvarez4Jesus]

Sorry, maybe next time, Jac.

Honest question: how is it not already put to rest? Gen 1:1-2 are connected by a non-temporal relation.

But the Introductory Sense of the WAW-Disjunctive according to Bill Mounce "may begin a new narrative
or introduce a new idea or theme within a narrative." Genesis 1:2 is simply a new narrative other than the one in Genesis 1:1. We know this from Jeremiah 4. This new narrative begins after verse 1 has happened, and after God destroyed the earth for sin in Jeremiah 4.

The GT is necessarily based a temporal relation between the verses. Look at the sentences I presented to ACB a long time ago:

• 1) (a) While I was typing this, (b) I got a headache. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
  2) (a) I fell off my bike (b) because the ground was so uneven. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
  3) (a) I voted today. (b) It was cold, rainy, and perfectly expressed my feelings about the candidates. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).

In all cases, the b clauses are non-temporally related to the a clauses. You cannot suggest a gap between them. The language just will not allow it. And that is exactly what we see with Gen 1:1-3.

Interesting you would give an example of the Circumstantial sense and the Parenthetical sense, but not the Contrastive sense nor the Introductory sense. Looks like you're selectively giving evidence, and not telling the whole truth. Want me to help you out? Here they are:

1. (a) I was at the store, (b) but I forgot my wallet. (Contrastive)
2. (a) I went to sleep. (b) Now, I was driving on the road, when this happened... (Introductory)

You can dispute the contrastive sense in some contexts. But you cannot dispute the fact that the Introductory sense shifts the story line to a NEW NARRATIVE! There can (as in the example above) be a time gap between a and b very easily in the Introductory sense of the WAW-Disjunctive. So it is with Genesis 1:1-2. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. NEW NARRATIVE: The Earth was without form and void. But how do we know it's a new narrative? By Jeremiah 4 telling us the Genesis 1:2 earth was just destroyed for sin.

Here's my translation:

• In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. The earth was uninhabited and uninhabitable, was shrouded in darkness, and the Spirit of God hovered protectively over it. Then God said, "Let there be light," etc.

The second verse can't be separated from the first. It tells you something about the first verse. The main line verbs are "created" and "said." They are one move the story forward. The first thing is the creation event itself. Then we have a line telling us something about that creation (the three circumstantial clauses). The second thing is God speaking. That's just the flow of the story.

But that is if the circumstantial sense of the WAW-Disjunctive is correct. Why not show the other senses and see how they make sense?

Again, there is just no "room," linguistically speaking, for a gap. If that isn't clear, if that doesn't click, I truly am at a loss for what else to say. It is as obvious as 1+1=2. If someone says that 1+1=3, they're just wrong. It's not an interpretive question. It's a factual question. This is just grammar. Temporal connections are made with a waw-consecutive (and that usually because you have a device that used to be called a waw-hahipuch, a waw of reversal, in which you the waw at the beginning of an imperfective verb gives it a perfective aspect; or a perfective verb gets an imperfective aspect; and it is usually imperfective verbs (that become perfective) that move the story forward). We don't have a waw-consecutive here. Ergo, we don't have a temporal connection. We have a conceptual, non-temporal connection. We have a waw-disjunctive.

And a WAW-Disjunctive can imply a gap of time by the Introductory sense which would place Genesis 1:2 as a different narrative than Genesis 1:1. Ergo, a different and later time, especially when you consult Jeremiah.

Anyway, I'm just repeating myself because I don't know what else to say. I don't have any idea how to put the idea to rest other than presenting these facts.. ACB and J4J aren't going to be convinced because they don't care about facts. But for those who do, I don't know what else we could possibly need. It's just completely and totally impossible to take the passage that way. Now, if you have any ideas how I could further clarify, I'd be more than willing to offer my thoughts. But I'm honestly at a loss for what else could or needs to be said.

Talk about dishonesty! You selectively gave evidence! You're hiding the facts. I gave facts. You and everybody here can read this paper again by Bill Mounce: http://hebrew.billmounce.com/BasicsBibl ... rew-23.pdf

"In this use, the disjunctive Waw may begin a new narrative or introduce a new idea or theme within a narrative." (Bill Mounce). So it is with Genesis 1:2.

[Jac3510]

After you all work though my post above, I'd encourage you to look at this excerpt from an intermediate Hebrew grammar. Pay special attention to the function of the waw-disjunctive. Also, in case some gapper wants to try to argue that the waw-disjunctive really does allow a gap because 1:2 is subordinate to 1:3 and not 1:1 (contrary to all readings), I would point out that this is impossible because of the structure of the entire passage. Here is a good discussion of that problem (clarification available if anyone is worried enough to pursue it further).

[jalvarez4Jesus]

After you all work though my post above, I'd encourage you to look at this excerpt from an intermediate Hebrew grammar. Pay special attention to the function of the waw-disjunctive. Also, in case some gapper wants to try to argue that the waw-disjunctive really does allow a gap because 1:2 is subordinate to 1:3 and not 1:1 (contrary to all readings), I would point out that this is impossible because of the structure of the entire passage. Here is a good discussion of that problem (clarification available if anyone is worried enough to pursue it further).

Worked though it. You're missing the Introductory sense. The paper you linked didn't fully touch on it as Bill Mounce's paper did. The Introductory sense of the WAW-Disjunctive can introduce a completely new and different narrative. I already gave an example of this and why Genesis 1:2 is most likely in the Introductory sense.

Again, Bill Mounce's paper: http://hebrew.billmounce.com/BasicsBibl ... rew-23.pdf

[jalvarez4Jesus]

mounce-waw-disjunctive-introductory.png (232.07 KiB) Viewed 3725 times

[abelcainsbrother]

Ok. Prepare for a boring post. I'm going to give you guys a basic lesson in Hebrew.

First, two extremely tedious points you probably already know about the language.

1. It is written right to left, not left to right.
2. In the original language, there were no vowels. It was all consonants. The vowel sounds are presented with little dots and marks under and above the consonants and were added a few hundred years ago to help with pronunciation.

With that said, I want you to actually be able to read Hebrew itself for this post. Rather than trying to learn the whole alphabet, here are the letters you need to know:

• א - Aleph (doesn't really make a sound--just uses the vowel beneath it. But, for starters, think about it as a "e" sound, as in "get")
  ב - Bet (pronounced, bait). Says "b" as in bat:
  ץ - Gimmel. Says "g" as in "goat"
  ה - hey. Says "h" as in "hat"
  ו - Waw (in modern Hebrew, pronounced "Vav"). Says "w" as in "water" (or, modern, "v" as in "van")
  י - Yod (as in YODa). Says "y" as in "yellow"
  ל - Lamed (pronounced LA-med). Says "l" as in "language"
  מ/ם - Mem (pronounced "maim"). Says "m" as in "milk." There are two forms of this letter. It is written as ם when it comes at the end of the word. Otherwise, it is written as מ
  ר - Resh (pronounced "raysh). Says "r" as in "Rick"
  ש - sin/shin (prounounced "seen" and "sheen"). This represents two letters and it either says "silent" or "sh" as in "shout." Which it is depends on which word. The vowel-pointing system we are not talking about lets readers distinguish which letter if they don't have the word memorized.
  ת - Tav (pronounced "tov"). Says "t" as in "tight"

That's all the letters you need to know to read Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew. Now here are the extra letters to also be able to read Genesis 1:2

• ח - Chet (hard to pronounce in English. Makes that "German sounding" H with the back of the throat)
  ך - Kaf. There is another version of this letter, just like there are two version of מ. This is the version that goes at the end of the word. It is pronounced "k" as in "kite."
  נ - Nun (pronounced "noon"). Says "n" as in "now"
  ע - Ayin (pronounced AH-yen). Like א, it takes the sound of the vowel. But for now, think of it as a short a, as in "apple"
  פ - Pey (pronounced "pay"). Says "p" as in "pretty"

So that is 16 letters you need to know. I really encourage you to spend a few minutes learning those letters. When you feel like you know those, here are the vocabulary words for Genesis 1:1. I'll give you the actual Hebrew word followed by a phonetic spelling (I am NOT transliterating!). You should be able to follow the word if you know the letters above

• בראשית - "Beresheet." - In the beginning. Composed of two words: ב ("beh," preposition meaning "in") and ראשית ( meaning "the beginning")
  ברא - "Barah" - He/She/It created
  אלהים - "Elohim" - God
  את - "et" - untranslatable. This is the direct object marker. Tells us what receives the action of the verb.
  השמים - "HashaMYeem" - the heavens. Composed of two words: ה ("hey," the definite article) and שמים (meaning "heavens"). Means "the heavens"
  ואת - "Weh-et" - two words, ו ("weh," translated in this case "and") and the aforementioned את.
  הארץ - "Ha-ARE-ets" - two words: ה (the definite article again) and ארץ (pronounced "AIR-ets" when not prefixed by the definite article). Means "the earth"

So, now, you should be able to read Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew! Here it is:

• בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

Exciting!

Now, a few points of grammar with making here. First, note that general word order. This is very common with Hebrew. You have the verb coming BEFORE the subject: ברא אלהים. Woodenly translated, this would be "He created God." But that's obviously not right. The word ברא comes before its subject. The subject is אלהים. So we translate it "God created." The word את gives us the object of the verb. It tells us what was created: השמים and also הארץ. Notice that the two are separated by another את, but this second את is prefixed by the letter ו. This is that "waw" everybody talks so much about.

So ו is itself a conjunction translated a lot of ways. It is usually rendered "and" in your English Bibles. I would encourage you, though, to think of it less as an English conjunction and more as having a function. Much as את has a function (to identify the object of the verb), ו has a function, too. Its job is to connect two ideas together. The nature of that connection is determined by several things. In the present case, being affixed to את, it is just connecting another object of the verb. So God creates two things: השמים and הארץ.

It is also worth pointing that while English is big on tenses (present, past, and future, and all of their derivatives), Hebrew is not. Put simply, Hebrew does not have tense. It has what grammarians call "aspect." There are basically two aspects in Hebrew verbs: perfect and imperfect. Perfect verbs are usually translated with the past tense. They picture an action as completed or whole. So ברא has a perfect aspect. It could be translated "he created," but it could also be translated "he has created" or "he had created" or whatever. It's up to context to decide what translation is best. Now we don't have any imperfect verbs in this verse (or in the next, for that matter), but suppose we had the imperfect version of that word, it would be translated something like "he will create" or "he was creating" or "he creates," etc. The aspect here is ongoing, continual, etc.

PLEASE DO NOT OVERREAD THAT. The aspect only speaks of how the action looks from the perspective of the author, and that from within the sentence itself. Never base a theological statement on aspect alone! There are WAY too many other variables to consider.

In any case, what this means in our verse is that the creation of the world is being considered as a completed act. And this is a good example of the warning above. This doesn't mean that all of creation was completed. Some YECs have tried to use that to say that Gen 1:1 is a summary statement and everything that follows explains how it happens. That's just not true. The point is just that it's a simple action. What happened here? God created the heavens and the earth. Simple.

Moving on to verse two. Here's your vocabulary for this verse:

• והארץ - you already know this word. It is just הארץ with the ו prefixed.
  היתה - "HI-yah-tah" - Means "it was"
  תהו - "toe-hoo" - Means "uninhabited," as in a wasteland
  ובהו - "wa-boe-hoo" - Two words: בהו ("bow-hoo") meaning "uninhabitable" and prefixed with ו
  וחשך - "weh-hoe-shek" - two words: חשך ("hoe-shek") meaning "darkness" and prefixed with ו
  על-פני - "al-pen-ay" - a two word idiom. על ("al") means "to" or "toward" or "before" and פני ("pen-ay") means "face." So these two words are an idiom of sorts that literally means "to the face of" and therefore means "upon."
  תהום - "teh-home" - refers to "the deep" of the oceans. There is an etymological connection with the Tiamat, the primordial ocean goddess.
  ורוח - two words: רוח ("roo-oc"), means "spirit," "breath," or "wind." Prefixed with ו
  מרחפת - "Mair-eh-hef-et," means "it hovers"
  המים - "ha-mai-eem" - Two words: מים, meaning "waters" and prefixed with the definite article ה

And now you should be able to read all of Genesis 1:2. Here it is:

• והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים

Cool!

So let's take these together. You get:

• בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים

And let's consider some grammatical points.

Let's start with the phrase תהו ובהו. Notice first this is not preceded by את. We wouldn't expect that because the verb היתה does not have a direct object. What follows would be a predicate adjective, which is what we get in תהו ובהו. But notice these two words are joined together again with the ו, just like השמים ואת הארץ were. It's hard to miss the word-play here. These words rhyme and it makes for pretty reading if you say it out loud: TOE-hoo wa-BOE-hoo. The meanings are closely related and picture the initial creation as a chaotic wasteland, completely barren and uninhabitable. (For your devotional purposes, that would have meaning to Hebrews when just outside the cities, the wilderness was really inhospitable to life!)

Notice there are two verbs in v2. The first is היתה. We've already noted this means "was" and has a stative aspect. (That' by the way, is the basis for gap theorists to argue it could be translated "it became"). The other is מרחפת. I won't go into the various stems in Hebrew verbs other than to say that there are seven of them. (If you want to learn about them, here's a page that might help.) For what it is worth, היתה is a simple qal (pronouned "Cal") and is the simplest form of the verb. מרחפת is in the piel stem. Were it in the qal, it would have been רחף (pronounced "rah-haf"), which means "to shake" or "to tremble."

Anyway, this is important because it gets to the ideas of mainline verbs and offline verbs I was talking about before. Notice that these verbs are in a perfect aspect. (That's why we don't translate them, "was becoming" and "was hovering," respectively.) Now, in Hebrew, when you tell a story, you have the mainline verb with a perfect aspect. You then advance the story, chronologically speaking, with an imperfect verb prefixed by the waw. You see that at the beginning of verse 3. It starts with the word:

• ויאמר

These are all letters you know. The word is pronounced "wa-yo-MARE" at means "He said." It is composed of two words: יאמר, which means, "he is saying," and the prefixed word ו. The word יאמר has an imperfect aspect. If you are curious, the qal (simple perfect) version of this word is אמר, which means "he spoke" or "he said." When you prefix the simple qal with the י (and make some vowel changes we aren't covering), then you get this version of the word. It's the imperfect.

So why don't we translate verse 3, "And God was saying, 'Let there be light!'" After all, ו is "and" and יאמר is "he was saying." Right? Here's the trick. In Hebrew, when you prefix an imperfect verb (יאמר, in this case), with the waw, the aspect is reversed. That gives יאמר a perfect aspect so that we translate it "he said." And if you are curious, the same rule applies if you prefix the waw to a simple qal verb. So if Genesis 1:1 had said, בראשית וברא אלהים, we would have translated it, "In the beginning, God was creating . . ."

So why do all this? Because this is, again, the way you move a story forward. Remember that the normal Hebrew word order is verb-subject-object. When you want to tell what happens next (temporally speaking), you use the imperfect version of the word and prefix the ו, which gives that verb a perfect aspect. First this happened, then that happened. That is why this is called a waw-consecutive.

Notice that neither of our verbs in verse 2 have the waw-consecutive. And why not? Because they do not advance the story forward. What is happening is that the two verbs are giving us background information about the main verb we are discussing. In this case, the main verb comes from verse 1, ברא. That is why that the ו in this case is prefixed not to a verb but to a noun (הארץ). And this goes back to what the meaning of the waw is. It is NOT "and." Remember that words have a function in a language. "And" is an English word with a certain function. A lot of that function overlaps the Hebrew word ו, but it isn't a 1:1 correspondence.

Now, there is a lot more correspondence between the meaning of the Hebrew word ו and the Greek word και (kai, pronounced like it looks). I don't want to spend much time talking about that word, but suffice it to say here it is also a connecting word and it is up to the context to tell us what kind of connection it is (that is right, και doesn't mean "and" either). So when the LXX renders ו as και, they knew what they were doing. It's English translators, especially of the KJV, that constantly rendered the και as "and" that made the mistake.

The question, then, is the nature of the connection between והארץ (and its following clause ) and verse 1. Well we've already seen that it is not a temporal connection. These verbs are offline. Remember that mainline verbs are perfective, sure, but they are usually in the form of a waw-consecutive. It's very common for offline verbs to use a simple stative. They tell us something about the nature of the action. This is very clear with the verb מרחפת. I don't see any gap-gappists claiming that there is a gap between "and darkness was upon the deep" and "and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters"! Notice that the waw is prefix to a noun again (just like it did at the beginning of the verse). In this case, it is prefixed to רוח. It would have been confusing to use the normal verb-subject-object routine and prefix the waw to מרחפת. The aspectual reversal would have created an odd picture. But as it stands, we have a very simple picture. Three things were all true: the earth was uninhabited and uninhabitable; darkness was on the waters; and the Spirit of God hovered over the deep. That's not three things that happened one after the other. The waw doesn't permit that reading. Rather, the three ideas are connected (that's what the waw does), and in this case, the connection is conceptual, not temporal.

That's why all grammarians now recognize Gen 1:2 as being circumstantially related to 1:1. It's just extremely obvious. The mainline verb is "God created." We then have several connecting ideas--the earth (connection 1) was uninhabited and uninhabitable; the darkness was on the water (connection 2); and the Spirit of God hovered on the waters (connection 3). Notice that ALL THREE of those conditions are preceded by a waw! (Maybe we should all be gap gap gap theorists, and suggest three gaps in that verse alone!!!) Anyway, then we see verse 3 begin with another mainline verb, just as expected: "And God said."

SO

I know this has been very long. I REALLY hope you all spend some time working through this. It really is worth it, and it sets the stage for a proper understanding of the theology of Genesis 1. The point is that it is less than impossible to have a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. That's just not how Hebrew grammar works.

Now, please, I don't know what else I could possibly say. But are there any clarifying questions anybody has?

Jac,this is not a boring post to me. It could help us I think to understand Hebrew better and although I hold to the Gap Theory and you don't I am not afraid of info that might prove the Gap Theory wrong. This is not our word but God's word and so we should handle it with utmost respect. I believe the Gap Theory is true but I unlike some it seems am not so dogmatic about it that I would not change my mind about it if it could be shown wrong. I just defend it because I believe it is the most true of the other creation interpretations just like you defend yours. We all defend our interpretation but I hope that when we do it we do it respectful realizing that this is God's word we are dealing with and not ours and if we are shown we are wrong we should repent and change our minds immediately. I will and have before and I can do it again. I do not look at a Christian as not a Christian because they accept a different interpretation than I do. I do not see our creation interpretation as equivalent to the gospel,I see you as a brother or sister in Christ if they are a Christian. I like these kinds of discussions.

Now having said that just from reading our English translations I accept the Gap Theory even if I don't know much about Hebrew and it seems to me that in order for the way you interpret Genesis 1:1-3 in order for you to be right Genesis 1:1 would need to say"In the beginning God said let there be a heaven and earth" but it does not say that it tells us" In the beginning God created the heaven and earth so I just do not doubt that he created and we see no other reason in scripture to think God creates junk and then decorates it.He created it and it was perfect how he wanted it until verse 2 happened. And the heaven and earth already exist when God says " Let there be light" in verse 3. Then it becomes even more clear as I read through Genesis 1 that something happened to cause it to be in the state its in in verse 2 by knowing the difference between created and made.Just by knowing the difference between the words created and made I can tell that stuff being made is just stuff being worked on or restored and it already exists or did exist before and it is just being re-made but when I see created it always means something new that God created like in Genesis 1:1. Also even in English created and made do not mean the same thing and they don't in Hebrew either. The truth is only God can create things and things can only be made by man. God can do both and he created and made things. This is why I say Moses knew about the gap the way he wrote it.

Now it is true that if a person just surface reads Genesis 1 and doesn't know the difference between created and made he could very well overlook this,but not if he reads it in Hebrew and was truthful and not biased.

[B. W.]

jalvarez4Jesus,

Do you under the Hebrew literary style known as dis-symmetric symmetry and how it is used in the creation account?

Such a style would not have a gap between verse one and two. Ancient Hebrew is unlike Greek / and future western concept of symmetry / form / step by step procedures etc...

Well Jac answered you and backed up what he is saying and it is sound. It supports how the ancient Hebrew thought wrote the account using what I mentioned above and imagery - a word picture - a word painting.

God splashed and dark back ground. Waited for it to set before adding Light to the painting of the word picture concerning creation. If you paint a back background, you must let it set and dry for a time before adding white to it to fill out the back ground of fine oil painting. If not, and you paint wet white paint onto wet Black paint - you get grey - and ruin the back drop needed to paint depth and details into the painting. You paint a little, let the pain set and cure before adding other colors.

It takes time to let the paint fully cure. That is the idea of the Hebrew literary style known as dis-symmetric symmetry used in the creation account. It is a word painting beginning from the perspective of where earth would be located before it ever was. The the backdrop is painted on, let set and cure before the next layer of the back drop and so forth.

Genesis 1:2 actually means the earth never existed and God brooding/planning where to place the earth. The term water just might not mean H2o as H2o because water was not created until what creation day on the earth?

Ancient Hebrew used around 8200 words in its entire vocabulary. Modern Hebrew is approaching 200,000. The ancient Hebrews used words like water also to indicate unknown substances or as a metaphor of some type or symbol. Basically on day two of creation, God the artist, is mixing together his creation paint and applying it here and there and letting it dry before day three begins. Think of guide brush strokes-outlines being applied on day two. On Day two God made the current heaven his home first before - re-read day two of creation again.

God as an artist painting a panting has set forth his backdrop/ground set his guide lines and outlines and let all the paint cure over time and on day three begins to paint what? details midst the backgound...

That is in line with the ancient Hebrew literary style known as dis-symmetric symmetry...and fits their world view looking at the whole picture first to figure out how things works rather than the West's mindset that thinks of the parts and steps needed first to make something whole.

Have a nice day...
-
-
-

[jalvarez4Jesus]

Genesis 1:2 actually means the earth never existed and God brooding/planning where to place the earth. The term water just might not mean H2o as H2o because water was not created until what creation day on the earth?

. So, let me get this straight: when Genesis 1:2 says "the earth" "the deep" "the waters", in reality, there was no "earth" or "deep" or "waters". You don't believe what Genesis 1:2 plainly says. "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."

[RickD]

Genesis 1:2 actually means the earth never existed and God brooding/planning where to place the earth. The term water just might not mean H2o as H2o because water was not created until what creation day on the earth?

. So, let me get this straight: when Genesis 1:2 says "the earth" "the deep" "the waters", in reality, there was no "earth" or "deep" or "waters". You don't believe what Genesis 1:2 plainly says. "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."

Earth('erets) can also mean land, in ancient Hebrew. So, while the earth(planet) existed, the earth(land) didn't.

[B. W.]

Genesis 1:2 actually means the earth never existed and God brooding/planning where to place the earth. The term water just might not mean H2o as H2o because water was not created until what creation day on the earth?

. So, let me get this straight: when Genesis 1:2 says "the earth" "the deep" "the waters", in reality, there was no "earth" or "deep" or "waters". You don't believe what Genesis 1:2 plainly says. "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."

You do not understand OT Hebrew at all and the use of a limited vocabulary that 8200 words imposed on the writer of Genesis.

Water was used as symbols and metaphors and even today it is as well too.

Jesus used water as a symbols and a metaphor the Holy Spirit as well too. So to be true to your own interpretation of Gen 1:2 then Jesus had that wrong as well too as in all cases where the bible says water in must be literal water and never as a symbol or metaphor.

Again Jalvarez... you are showing ignorance of facts. Facts of OT Hebrew grammar and Literary style and the progression of the Hebrew Language which over time created more words in it vocabulary just as any human language has done over time. Ignorance of metaphors and symbols just to prove an unprovable case... wow...

Gap Theorist do not need the bible to make his or her case: it is a theory that was once held the norm back in the early late 1800's and 1900's and made into a dispensationalist norm by Clarence Larkin to defend against another theory - Darwinism evolutionary theory... of that era in history.

I don't care about a persons creation view Gap, yec, old earth, adaptive change model, or even the newest: space alien DNA seeding. The important things is this: Jesus Christ and do better to reflect Him to a lost and dying world.

As long as a Christian does not lose sight of that, I do not care what creationist view you hold as a Christian. Treat it as a theory. The bible sadly does not support gap but that does not mean there is a possibility of it either buried in the ground somewhere. Until that something is found, then, it is a theroy - please treat it as such.

Lastly, the term without form means - non-exisitence according to the context of God creating ex nihilo (out of nothing)

See article: https://www.theopedia.com/creation-ex-nihilo

So what does Psalms 33:6, Psalms 148:5, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 11:3 indicate about God creating ex nihilo? There is biblical evidence that He did and if out of nothing then the without form phrase and void phrase means the earth did not exist in Gen 1:2.

Therefore the word translated water used in Gen 1:2, 6,7,8 indicate water is being used as a metaphor or symbol denoting something else in those specific verses before referring to the elements that make up water (which we can measure as h2o) were comprised thus creating earth and land masses and water that all go with it enabling life to unite to it.

Is this controversial? Controversial yes, because of our bias human bound earth-centric views of Genesis' creation account without regard to context of God creating ex nihilo! But still a theory nevertheless... based upon literay form of ancient Hebrew text and use of word metaphors and symbols known at the time maybe mean something else in God's mind that people fail to note.

Is there evince outside the bible for this - yes our ability to measure elements , atoms, sub atomic particle, laws of Physics all point out that water could be a symbol for these things that God created ex nihilo and stirred together midst the expanse...of something...

Now, if what you say is true about literal water you must ask yourself: is the current heaven made out of water as per Gen 1:7,8 - separated the waters to be below from the waters to be above and called heaven? Are angels fish then? Is the concept of god mean god is a gold fish who needs h2o to live in?

See the difficulty in not treating the word for water as a metaphor/symbol?

Day one of Creation: The only True God - The strong one true God created ex nihilo

Day Two of Creation: God makes for himself Heaven as his house....

Day three of Creation: God created the conditions for life to unite too... to travel on, grow...

Day Four of Creation: God made the entry way for time to be measured by making the stars, etc, that reveal
his creative works... to be seen and measured. Note Romans 1:20

Day Five of Creation: God created the revelation of the grace of Life to reveal things about him (Note Rev 4:11 NKJV)

On Day Six of Creation: God created things needing attachment to a caretaker and a caretaker - man and woman to tend and keep...

On Day Seven of Creation: God rested from what he plowed/created by enjoying the perfection of the creation he had made - thus setting the stage for life on earth to unfold so eventually his final perfection to come will manifest in course of measured time, note Rev 21:1-4

All for that new day, era to dawn and begin...

Now if a person is knowledgeable about how the Hebrew Letters have numbers assigned to each letter and each letter has its meanings and a number meaning that person will see these meanings in each completed day of creation that corresponds to the events of that single creation day.

Did you know this Jalvare?
-
-
-

[Audie]

Jalvarez must ask himself why no serious Hebrew scholar agrees with his analysis. These are people who have spent many years studying the nuances of ancient Hebrew grammar, and many other passages of the period, in which the same grammatical rules were applied. Languages have structures and rules. And what Jalvarez suggests denies that. Plus, what he's asserting describes an aftermath (of a destroyed former world), that clearly perfectly fits with the Creation's beginning - but he's morphing it to fit his preconceived belief.

Secondly, we're to believe God created a whole previous world, in which He's utterly destroyed. And so He supposedly finds it important and useful to reference, yet without any details that would make such an understanding crystal clear. Obviously, the sins of Israel would lay ruin and chaos, metaphorically akin to the earth's pre-Creation conditions. So, we're to believe God chooses to reveal copious details about the present earth's history, references some mass destruction of the past, doesn't explain it, make it clear, or understandable as to why the destruction, all the while knowing later readers wouldn't make this connection, so obscure, so vague, which ignores the period's Hebrew grammar rules. All of this resulting in no such clarity, and that even the scholars who have, for centuries, studied these Scriptures, with ever-greater insights, overwhelmingly reject this nonsense. And if you don't have the Christian scholars on board - at least a significant percent of them, then next to no one is going to buy into this strained interpretation.

Third, one must ask why the obsession and straining to fit such an obscure meaning to a tiny number of verses? What does it prove? Who do you expect to convince? What is the value of this? It's a pointless thing to argue for! Certainly, unprovable. And unless I was a Hebrew scholar, I sure wouldn't be pressing an interpretation that only a tiny few have - that is, amongst those considered credible scholars. So, you're wasting your breath and typing practice on this. ACB has spent countless hours trying to do the same thing. And NO facts, no logic, no scholarly refutation will deter him. And, around here, I think we all have a fondness for ACB, and we love ribbing him about this belief. But no one here has ever taken his assertions seriously - and for very good reasons. So don't waste further time on this quirky belief - at least upon pushing it here.

Why the obsession and straining to (force) fit?

Of course, that is what I see pretty much all Christians as doing.

Taking this particular tho, here may be part of it:

We all like to be creative and insightful. The bible has been so
overstudied by so many people, a new insight is tough to come by.

If someone thinks they may have something, why not
defend it? Courage of conviction, see if it can stand the test, all that.
We all admire these qualities in someone.

It takes another quality, more demanding still, to be intellectually
honest and rigorous in thinking / arguing throough some idea.

I dont care to get involved in the cosmological argument as to hold up my
end in that game, I'd have to study far more than I am inclined to.

I cant argue Hebrew either. I cannot address the theological merits of
gapistry.

I can tho address the scientific merits. Divers people here are telling others that they are "missing the point", as well they theologically may be.

I dont think many astrophysicists are too impressed by cosmo-but someone can show me
wrong, if they can.

As for gap this or gap that, there has to be a flood.
Which is a reason nobody with a decent scientific background
would classify any gap theory above the level of a "groaner", worthy at
most of rolling eyes heavenward.

Our gappists claim scientific backing, of course, that they
do "evidence" and are open to being corrected by scientific data.

All pro forma lip service, of course. Easy to say, cya, sounds so reasonable
Im no scientist, but I sure can spot a phony who claims tp use science.


In regard to missing the point-why do obscure points of Hebrew
grammar, unless to make endless a senseless debate?

Gap requires flood. There was no flood.

Naturally, such inconvenient truth is to be evaded at
all cost, even unto the cost sanity, if need be.*

* see "embedded age" or polar glaciers being "stuck down"
to account for their existence even after a world wide flood.

[Jac3510]

I've been thinking a bit more about how to explain subordination of 1:2 to either 1:1 or 1:3. This is really a central question, no, to go further, the central question. If you have a gappist that doesn't bring this up, you immediately know that this gappist has no idea what they are talking about. There's a really important point here about the way we approach biblical interpretation that applies to all of us, but as that's more general, I'll come back to that last.

Anyway, so here I want to build on my longer post above. Again, I do hope that you work through it and actually learn the Hebrew letters and vocabulary. I'm only asking you to learn sixteen letters and sixteen words (depending on how you count complex words like על-פני and ורוח), and it rewards really are worth it, I think. In any case, what I think is absolutely definitive from that somewhat lengthy study is that the waw-disjunctive at the beginning of Gen 1:2 (והארץ) indicates a non-sequential clause. That is, verse 2 can, in no way, be construed to move the story forward temporally. That means that if the disjunction gives us circumstantial information about the earth in verse 1, then can be no gap between them.

But there could still be a way forward for the gappist. They can claim that the waw-disjunctive in 1:2 is not subordinate to 1:1, but rather subordinate to 1:3. A good example of this can be found in Ruth 2:1, where we see:

• ולנעמי לאישה איש גבור חיל ממשפחת אלימלך ושמו בעז

You should be able to see the waw attached to the first word. In this case, the word is "weh-le-na-oh-me" or, "Now, Naomi . . ." This is clearly a waw-disjunctive. It doesn't move the story forward temporally at all. In fact, here's the English of the verses right before and after:

• So Naomi returned [ותשב - "we-ta-shav" - waw-consecutive prefixed to an imperfect verb giving it a perfect aspect and moving the story forward] from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning. Now Naomi [ולנעמי - waw-disjunctive, no temporal advance] had a relative on her husband’s side, a man of standing from the clan of Elimelek, whose name was Boaz. And Ruth the Moabite said [ותאמר - "we-t'amar" - waw-consecutive prefixed to an imperfect verb to give it a perfect aspect and moving the story forward] to Naomi, “Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor.”

So this is easy to track.

• Mainline verb, sequential action: Naomi returned
  Offline, non-sequential info: Naomi has relative named Boaz
  Mainline verb, sequential action: Ruth speaks

A good textual analyst will do this for the entire passage under consideration. It helps you see what the temporal actions are, what is main line, what supportive information is provided, etc. In a lot of ways, the supportive information is more important than the main verbs because that tends to provide the explanation (and so theological weight, ultimately) of the actions. Yeah, Naomi returned. We can make a big deal about that. And yes, we can preach on Ruth's words. But the offline information here is essential: Boaz is Naomi's relative. Why is this included, and here of all places? It puts Ruth's words into a special context and raises our expectations. It tells us something about where the story is going and what the author wants us to see and focus on. Obviously, in this story, it is the relationship between Boaz and Ruth.

Okay, enough about that. My point is that this one of the ways a waw-disjuctive can be used. It can introduce new information at the beginning of a narrative shift. It's important to note that this shift does not constitute the temporal shift. That only happens with the sequential verbs. But it sets us up to look for the next movement in action. So this type of waw-disjunction has the offline, circumstantial information before its sequential verb. We see that in the Ruth example above. 2:1 is related to 2:2. The waw-disjunctive does not relate 2:1 back to 1:22.

So, back to Genesis, a gappist could try to claim that 1:2 is not related to 1:1 after all, but that it is instead related to 1:3. To demonstrate in English, the traditional reading goes like this:

• In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.
  
  Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

But the gappist could suggest the following reading:

• In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
  
  The earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, and God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

On this reading, there could be (not necessarily is) a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, but that for the rather trivial reason that there is obviously on any reading a gap between 1:1 and 1:3. God created, and then God said "let there be light." Unless you take 1:1 to be a summary statement with God's speaking in 1:3 being the first real action--and no one here is defending that view--then it's clear that God's creating is one event and God's speaking is another, temporally subsequent, event. How long between them? I'll let YECs and OECs argue over that. For our purposes in discussing gappery, it's sufficient to note the gap here, for the gappist can claim that the gap between 1:1 and 1:2 is there because 1:2 is really a part of 1:3. In other words, you have the events in 1:1, followed by the events in 1:2-3, because the waw-disjunctive in 1:2 introduces the narrative in 1:3.

That's why I said the really central question is the relationship between 1:2 and 1:1 or 1:3. Put simply, does 1:2 modify 1:1 or 1:3?

Now, before I offer my own answer, I want to pause to point out that it doesn't matter how a YEC or OEC answers this. It doesn't really effect our theology. Again, remember the question for us is how long the "gap" is between 1:1 and 1:3, not whether or not there was one at all. If we take 1:2 to modify 1:1, we just recognize that the initial creation was formless and void, etc. If we take it to modify 1:3, we still take it to say that God spoke light into a[n initial] creation that was formless and void, etc. There's no consequence here. But gappists are in a different boat. They are required to defend the notion that 1:2 is connected to 1:3 and not 1:1, because that is the only way to sustain their view. For if 1:2 is connected to 1:1, their view is condemned by Scripture explicitly. And further, connecting 1:2 to 1:3 does not prove their view. It simply allows them to argue that between 1:1 and 1:2-3, there were catastrophic events, such that the creation that was tohu wabohu was not the initial creation. Obviously, they would have to make those arguments based on other texts, because they certainly don't get them from this passage.

Anyway, so what evidence is there that 1:2 is connected to 1:3 and not 1:1?

In a word, none.

The only reason one would accept such a reading is to support a bias. There is literally no reason whatsoever to view verse 2 as subordinate to verse 3. To be very clear, showing that a reading is grammatically possible is not the same thing as showing it is grammatically plausible. You have to provide reasons for the syntactical classifications. So the first problem for a gapper is that, when writing their exegesis of the passage and coming to the waw-disjunctive in 1:2, they have to say something like, "Now, here we have the waw-disjunctive. It is to be taken here in an introductory, not circumstantial, sense, for 1:2 is subordinate to 1:3. This is true, because if it were not, then there would be no gap between 1:1 and 1:2." I want to make this even clearer and demonstrate the logic of this argument. In syllogism it goes as follows:

• 1. If Gen 1:2 is subordinate to 1:1, then there is no sequential gap between 1:1 and 1:2
  2. There is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2
  3. Therefore, Gen 1:2 is not subordinate to Gen 1:1; which is to say, Gen 1:2 must be subordinate to 1:3

Now, this is a valid argument. But that doesn't make it persuasive, and I think it shows a major, major problem with this entire gappy enterprise. This argument presumes the gap theory in order to defend it. In other words, it's just circular reasoning. You can't get to the gap theory, then, unless you already assume the gap theory. And then there's a deeper linguistic point, which is that theology cannot be used to determine syntactical classification. This is a general principle that I see violated all the time. Commentators and exegetes are forever classifying verbs and conjunctions into this or that syntactical category on the basis of a theological assumption. This really, upon minimal reflection, ought to be self-evident. Such classifications are determined based on linguistic, not theological, features. Therefore, anytime someone classifies based on a theological assumption, the argument should either be completely rejected as a non-sequitur or else held as very seriously suspect.

Against this, I think there is excellent linguistic evidence to hold to the traditional view that 1:2 it subordinate to 1:1. I'll offer three points of support.

First, with regard to the waw-disjunctive generally, whenever it is used in an introductory (rather than circumstantial) sense, it generally found "at the beginning of a story episode" in which "new characters are often first mentioned." (See An Introduction to Hebrew Syntax by Bruce Waltke, p. 740.) You see that in Ruth 2:1 as discussed above. You also see it in Gen 3:1 (Mounce's example), and Gen 4:1 makes another interesting case study. There we see Eve, who has already been introduced, so she isn't new per se, but the whole purpose of the line ("Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, Cain") is to introduce Cain. Further, if you look at all three of these examples, you see that they are very clearly introducing an entirely new story. That is, there is a shift of scenery. So in Ruth 2:1, we move from Naomi having just returned to Bethlehem, and now the scene changes to Ruth going to meet Boaz. In Gen 3:1, we have left off the story of God having created Adam and Eve and them living in harmony in Eden to a new scene in which we will see the story of their Fall. In Gen 4:1, we have left the story of the Fall and the scene has shifted to a new geographical location and new characters, where now we will look at the relationship between Cain and Abel (as illustrative of the effects of the sin in chapter three).

None of that applies to Genesis 1:2. No new characters are introduced and there is no change of scenery. There is just no way to separate 1:1 from 1:2-31. The scene is obviously the same: creation. Again, to argue that the scene changes based on a preexisting theological commitment is circular reasoning at best. There is absolutely no linguistic evidence whatsoever of a change of scenery. Therefore, the waw-disjunctive does not display the linguistic markers for an introductory function, and so that classification should be rejected. On the other hand, it fits very well as a circumstantial understanding of Gen 1:1.

Second, you have in the narrative structure of Genesis 1, a very clear pattern of days. From 1:3 on, you have six days described. In all six days, the events are marked off with the phrase "And God said" (ויאמר), and ends with the number of the day. The NIV does a good job representing that graphically, which you can see here. But if we take 1:2 to be subordinate to 1:3, we have a violation of the pattern. The first day when begin with a waw-disjunction and only later have the important "And God said" phrase. On the other hand, it seems more obvious that 1:2 is connected to 1:1 and the pattern of the six days is preserved. Since 1:2 fits very naturally with 1:1, and since the rest of the creation story deals explicitly with the three circumstantial clauses in 1:2, we should prefer the subordination of 1:2 to 1:1 and reject its subordination to 1:3.

Third, we see the connection of הארץ in 1:1 and 1:2. The word does not appear again until verse 11, although it does appear without the definite article in verse 10 (ארץ), here not talking about the whole earth but the land itself producing vegetation. It simply makes no linguistic sense to propose that 1:1 introduces the creation of הארץ, and then there is some unspecified gap after which 1:2 reintroduces הארץ in connection with the creation of light. Against this, the two uses of הארץ seem clearly connected. Look at the Hebrew text again:

• בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים

Notice that the the last word of 1:1 is הארץ and the first word of 1:2 is הארץ. Very literally, Moses discusses the creation of earth and immediately, with no (literary) gap whatsoever, not even a single word, begins discussing the state of that earth. I cannot imagine a way to more clearly denote that 1:2 is connected and subordinate to 1:1 than this. It would be one thing if Moses started 1:2 with the darkness (which Hebrew would allow) or with its formless (which Hebrew would allow). But the phrasing, הארץ והארץ (the earth, and [that] earth . . .), is so obviously connected that to deny it is to be willful in doing so.

I could offer more evidence, but I think this is enough to demonstrate the point. There is evidence, and powerful evidence at that, that 1:2 is subordinate to 1:1, and no evidence whatsoever that 1:3. Therefore, it should be so construed and the introductory understanding should be rejected--even though we could accept it and still reject the gap theory.

------------------------------

Having said all that, I want to go back and revisit a point I hinted at twice above and lift it up more plainly here, as I think this is something we can all learn from. It is common for us to start with an interpretation and then go in search of evidence for our position. I hope if you ever find yourself doing that you immediately step back and realize what you are doing. What is happening to our gappist friends here is that they started with the claim that there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. When that was proven grammatically impossible, they went in search of a way out, and they found it in a possible classification of the waw-disjunctive. This, though, forced them to change the claim. Rather than having 1:2 be an independent clause (so the "and" argument they make so much), they now have to claim it is introductory and so dependent on and subordinate to 1:3. Do you see the goal posts moving there?

Any time we see that, we should immediately stop and ask ourselves what is going on. Whenever someone refutes our argument and we go looking for one to replace it, we will almost certainly find one. And when we then present that replacement argument, we should recognize that we have moved the goalposts. And that is problematic, not because it means our replacement argument is wrong (it might be the right one!) but because it says something about our motivation. We are now no longer trying to understand what the Bible actually says, but we are, rather, looking for evidence to preserve our understanding of what the Bible says. We have, in this, made ourselves, and not Scripture, the authority. And I see that happening a lot in this thread and with this argument in particular. I would suggest to you all, then, that our gappists don't actually believe the Bible. They believe their theory, and they are simply being dishonest. Not with us! They are being dishonest with themselves. They refuse to admit what they are actually doing. And I want to raise this as a red flag for the rest of us. All of us are in danger of falling into this very trap whenever we discuss an interpretation we favor. That includes me. Our motivation for defending a particular view should be judged and judged again to ensure that we are looking for truth and not simply looking to be right.

Anyway, sorry again for the long post. Blame Rick. He asked me to do more work to put this to bed, and so I thought I'd oblige him.

[jalvarez4Jesus]

I think you just admitted that its possible for there to be a gap in between 1:1 and 1:2, but you don't see any evidence for it. Okay. At least now its moved from the realm of the "impossible" to the "improbable". That's progress.

[Audie]

The sooner someone can prove that genesis absolutely means there was a world wide flood,
the better. Then the whole thing can be chucked as childish superstition, a fairy tale.