The second point mentioned by Dr Whitcomb is that of Adam’s dominion. If the Gap Theory is correct, then, when Adam was created, he would have been a very late arrival on the scene and would have been placed on a world that had just been destroyed and recreated. He would have been walking upon a literal graveyard of billions of creatures over which he had never, nor would ever, exercise dominion, in spite of what Genesis 1:26 teaches about humans having dominion over all the creatures of the earth. Furthermore, the Gap Theory has to define the ‘very good’ of Genesis 1:31, for, according to this theory, when Adam was created, this ‘very good’ world would already have become the domain of a fallen and wicked being (Satan), who is described in Scripture as ‘the god of this world’ (2 Cor. 4:4, KJV).
The third point raised by Dr Whitcomb is the Edenic curse. The Gap Theory seriously undermines the doctrine of the curse which God placed upon the earth as a result of Adam’s rebellion. According to the Gap Theory, animals were living and dying, not only before the Fall of Adam, but also before Satan’s rebellion against God. Furthermore, some of these animals were carnivorous and others were omnivorous. In other words, they were already eating one another! This is contrary to what the Bible teaches; Scripture says that the ‘groaning and travailing in pain’ of the whole creation described in Romans 8:22 [KJV] is the result of the Edenic curse which came after Adam’s fall. It was not until the first man deliberately rejected the revealed command of God that death made its first appearance on this planet (Rom. 5:12) and that animals fell under the ‘bondage of corruption’ (Rom. 8:21).
The fourth and final point raised by Dr Whitcomb about the Gap Theory is that this teaching tacitly assumes that Noah’s Flood, to which the writer of the book of Genesis allocates three whole chapters, was an insignificant event from a geological point of view because ‘Lucifer’s flood’ (which supposedly took place at some point in the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) was the cause of the formation of all the fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks. Hence the Gap Theory teaches that, far from being a global catastrophic flood, Noah’s Flood was a localized event—something that is not taught either in the book of Genesis nor in the passages of the New Testament that refer to this cataclysmic event.
Does the Hebrew teach the Gap Theory?
In spite of all the arguments outlined above, some still maintain that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, arguing that the Hebrew grammar and the use of Hebrew words in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Old Testament insist upon it. But they do not! In Unformed and Unfilled, Weston W. Fields accomplishes the superb task of showing that every argument used by the proponents of the Gap Theory is wrong. For example, he has shown that the grammar of Genesis 1:2 indicates ‘that the clauses of which it is composed are a description of the action of the main verb (namely the action of creating the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1), not a chronological sequential development after 1:1’.5 This same conclusion is reinforced by M. W. J. Phelan: ‘The grammatical facts of Genesis 1:2 drive us to conclude that the earth was created in a condition the Scriptures describe as unformed and unfilled. The Gap Theory contradicts these plain facts, and consequently, contradicts Scripture!’6
Some argue that the Hebrew word hayeta that is translated ‘was’ in Genesis 1:2 should be translated ‘became’. But, again, this is not so. Weston W. Fields has shown that ‘was’ is the traditional and only legitimate translation of hayeta.7 This conclusion has also been deduced by M. W. J. Phelan8 and this, on its own, negates one of the forceful arguments of the Gap Theory.
Weston W. Fields also examines the meanings of the two Hebrew words asa (to make) and bara (to create) and the relationships between them. He concludes that the meaning of these two words is such that ‘it allows no time for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; it allows for no gap before Genesis 1; and it requires recent creation. Only intimidation by contemporary scientism can drive one to persist in rejecting the plain teaching of Scripture.’9 The phrase ‘without form and void’ has also been examined by Weston W. Fields; he has concluded ‘that neither lexical definition, nor contextual usages require that we view Genesis 1:2 as a scene of judgment—an evil state created by the fall of angels’. He goes on to say that tohu and bohu are used to describe ‘something unfinished, and confused, but not necessary evil!’.10
Finally, other arguments used by those propagating the Gap Theory have also been critically examined by Weston W. Fields. These include the following:
That as God is the God of light, God’s original creation would not have included the darkness in Genesis 1:2. Hence darkness must be evil, the result of judgement.
That 2 Corinthians 4:6 (‘For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’) supports the Gap Theory.
That Hebrews 11:3 (‘By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible’) supports the Gap Theory, because the word translated ‘framed’ can also be translated ‘restored’.
The existence of fossils including those of pre-Adamic ‘people’.
The arguments in favour of ‘Lucifer’s flood’.
In each case, the arguments used by proponents of the Gap Theory are shown to be ‘sterile, based on theological biases and extraordinarily strained’.11
Finally, in his book Creation and Change, Dr Douglas Kelly, Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, makes the following pertinent comment about the Gap Theory: ‘The “gap” theory should serve as a model of what Christians should not do in their legitimate desire to speak Biblical truth into a world held in the tight grip of humanistic premises.’12 This is sound advice, not only to those who believe in the Gap Theory, but also to those who believe in theistic evolution and other compromise positions.
Conclusion
The Gap Theory, then, is a compromise formulated in the last couple of centuries in an attempt to harmonize the plain teachings of the Scriptures with the ideas of the evolutionists. In order to arrive at such a compromise position, advocates of the Gap Theory accept what evolutionists teach about millions of years and then reinterpret the Scriptures in order to make them fit in with these evolutionary ideas. The Gap Theory does not, therefore, rest upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture, but is founded on the shifting sands of the ideas of evolutionists.
Notes
1 Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976).
2 M. W. J. Phelan, The Genesis ‘Gap Theory’ (Waterlooville: Twoedged Sword Publications, 2005)
3 J. C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (rev. edn.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986), p. 158.
4 See ‘Those Sophisticated Cave Men’, at: http://s8int.com/sophis2.html.
5 Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, pp. 75–86.
6 Phelan, The Genesis ‘Gap Theory’, p. 51.
7 Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, pp. 87–112.
8 Phelan, The Genesis ‘Gap Theory’, p. 61.
9 Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, p. 74.
10 Ibid. p. 129.
11 Ibid.
12 Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change (Fearn: Mentor, 1997), p. 95.
Chapter 4
The age of the earth: biblical considerations
One of the most important questions in the creation/evolution debate concerns the age of the earth. The Bible teaches very clearly that the earth was created by Almighty God between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. This, however, is dismissed as ‘rubbish’ by evolutionists. This is because evolutionists maintain that the earth is the result of the evolution of the universe and that it came into existence about 4,600 million years ago. Evolutionists argue that their date for the age of the earth is based on science whereas the creationists’ date is based on faith.
In this chapter we will look carefully at what the Bible teaches about the age of the ea
rth. In the next chapter we will investigate the methods by which evolutionists arrive at their age of the earth, to see whether these methods are accurate or not. We will look carefully at how rocks are dated and at the assumptions that are made in their age determinations. We will also look to see if there is any scientific evidence for believing that the age of the earth should be measured in thousands rather than thousands of millions of years.
Did God create everything in 4004 BC?
Did God create everything in 4004 BC—the date that is found printed in the margins of old Bibles alongside Genesis 1 and which seems to be ingrained in so many people’s minds? What exactly, if anything, does the Bible teach about the age of the earth? Is it possible to arrive at an exact date for the creation of the earth? Many believe that the Bible teaches that the creation did indeed take place in 4004 BC. Although it is generally known that this is Ussher’s date, many do not know who Ussher was, how he obtained this date, and how it found its way into the margin of the first page of so many Bibles.
In 1650, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, devised, by using the Bible, a system of chronology that dated creation to the evening preceding 23 October 4004 BC.1 This date is some seventy-six years earlier than that proposed by the distinguished Greek scholar John Lightfoot, who was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge in 1644. From textual considerations, he concluded that the creation began at nine o’clock on the morning of 17 September 3929 BC. Ussher’s date of 4004 BC was inserted into the margin alongside Genesis 1 in the Great (1701) Edition of the English Bible by William Lloyd, Bishop of Winchester. This practice was followed in subsequent editions. In 1900, however, Cambridge University Press stopped printing this date in their Bibles, and they were followed by Oxford University Press some ten years later.
On the face of it, calculating the age of the earth from the Bible is simplicity itself. First of all, the date of Abraham’s birth must be determined. Then, by using the genealogies in Genesis 11 and 5, it should be possible to calculate when Noah and Adam lived, respectively. Finally, a consideration of Genesis 1 to determine the length of the creation days should make it possible to calculate the age of the earth. But it is not actually as straightforward as this, and there are many pitfalls and difficulties, as we shall see.
Determining the age of the earth from the Bible
The first problem is to determine when Abraham lived. At present, Abraham is known only from biblical sources, although most scholars place Abraham ‘toward the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (1900–1800 BC) or the end of the Early Bronze Age (2150–2000 BC)’.2 An Early Bronze Age date, however, fits perfectly with the dates for Abraham that we can determine from the Bible.
Dr Edwin Thiele has produced a chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah based on information given in the books of Kings and Chronicles.3 He has shown how these dates tie in with those given in the writings of the Assyrians and Babylonians, and also how they connect with other historical writings of the time. Furthermore, he has shown that we can know that these dates are accurate because they can be double-checked against the records of astronomical events, which are fixed.
Dr Edwin Thiele has determined that the division of the kingdom of Israel at the death of Solomon occurred in 931 BC.4 Using this date and the time periods given in 1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 12:40, it can be shown that Jacob must have entered Egypt in 1877 BC; since he was 130 years old at the time (Gen. 47:9), he must have been born in 2007 BC. As Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26), and Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5), Abraham (or Abram, as he was known at first) must have been born in 2167 BC. This date fits perfectly with an Early Bronze Age date for Abraham as suggested by scholars.
Assuming that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are complete, and that there are father–son relationships between those named in the genealogies, we can construct the chronology shown in Table 2. This chronology shows that the Flood must have occurred in 2459 BC, some 1656 years after Adam, who would have been created in 4115 BC.
Are there gaps in biblical genealogies?
The crucial question is: Are the genealogies that are recorded in Genesis 5 and 11 complete? In other words, do they have to be interpreted as a strict chronology? The simple answer to this question is that there is no way of knowing. Some have argued that these genealogies are complete,5 others, myself included, have argued that they may not be complete and that there may be gaps in them.6 However, even if it is accepted that there are gaps in these genealogies, there are limits to how much these genealogies can be stretched.
There are twenty names in the patriarchal list from Adam to Abraham. There is a definite father–son relationship between five of these pairs: Adam and Seth (Gen. 5:3); Lamech and Noah (Gen. 5:28–30); Noah and Shem (Gen. 9:18); Shem and Arphaxad (Gen. 11:10); and Terah and Abraham (Gen. 11:26–32). Hence there are only fourteen possible generation gaps in the genealogies. If there are gaps in these genealogies, they cannot be huge. If each gap was a thousand years, for example,7 then the date of Adam’s creation would be about 18000 BC. This would mean, though, that when the genealogy records, for example, that ‘Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah’ (Gen. 5:21), we have to interpret this as meaning, ‘Enoch lived sixty-five years and begot a son whose descendant 1,000 years later was Methuselah’. It has to be admitted that if this was done for the fourteen possible gaps, it would stretch the genealogies to almost breaking point.
Table 2: Chronology from Adam to Abraham, assuming that there are no gaps in the genealogies given in Genesis chapters 5 and 11
Name of patriarch Year of birth Age at birth
of next patriarch Year of death
AC BC AC
Adam – 4115 130 930
Seth 130 3985 105 1042
Enosh 235 3880 90 1140
Cainan 325 3790 70 1235
Mahalaleel 395 3720 65 1290
Jared 460 3655 162 1422
Enoch 622 3493 65 987a
Methuselah 687 3428 187 1656
Lemach 874 3241 182 1651
Noah 1056 3059 502b 2006
Shem 1558b 2561b 100b 2158c
Arphaxad 1658b 2457 35 2096c
Salah 1693 2422 30 2126c
Eber 1723 2392 34 2187c
Peleg 1757 2358 30 1996c
Reu 1787 2328 32 2026c
Serug 1819 2296 30 2049c
Nahor 1849 2266 29 1997c
Terah 1878 2237 70 2083
Abram 1948 2167 100 2123
AC After Creation (or Adam)
BC Before Christ
(a) ‘By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”’ (Heb. 11:5).
(b) The Flood occurred in 1656 AC (when Noah was 600 years old) and Genesis 11:10 records that Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the Flood.
(c) These dates may not be the year of death.
However, we do have a clear example of a gap in a genealogy given in the Scriptures in Matthew 1:8, where we read that ‘Joram begot Uzziah’. When we turn to the historical books of the Old Testament, however, we discover that Joram (also known as Jehoram) was the father of Ahaziah (2 Chr. 22:1); Ahaziah was the father of Joash (2 Chr. 22:11); Joash was the father of Amaziah (2 Chr. 24:27); and Amaziah was the father of Uzziah (also known as Azariah; 2 Chr. 26:1). So instead of the genealogy being Joram–Uzziah, it was in fact Joram–Ahaziah–Joash–Amaziah–Uzziah. Three generations have been omitted, and this amounts to seventy-four years.
Although we do not know for certain whether there are any gaps in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, we can be certain that, if there are any, they are not huge. We can be confident, therefore, that although we may not be able to date the creation of Adam exactly, it is doubtful whether it could have been much earlier than 4004 BC. However, it is not possible to go as far as determining the month or the exact day of the month, as others have done.
The Bible teaches that Adam was created on the sixth day of creation, and we have seen that the days in Genesis 1 are literal, historical days and that there is no gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This means that the date of the creation of the earth is essentially the same as the date of Adam’s creation, for he was created only six days after the creation of the earth. This means that the earth is not much older than 6,000 years. The conclusion at which we arrive as we consider what the Bible teaches about the age of the earth is therefore very clear. Although we may not be able to calculate the exact age of the earth from the Bible, we are absolutely certain that its age should be measured in thousands, not thousands of millions, of years.
Superficial appearance of age
What About Origins? (CreationPoints) Page 8
