(Please Scroll Down for Chart & Comments on Hebrew Word Order)
Personally, I have witnessed to scores of people who have endorsed evolution. Their reasoning is that man has been on the earth millions of years, i.e., since the earth was originally created; therefore, they associate man’s existence equal to the age of the earth. This is the problem. When they understand that the original creation of the earth could very well be millions of years old, BUT, that man has only been on the reconstructed earth for approximately 6,000 years, the “gap” or better, the lapse of time between the original creation and God remodeling the earth for human like disassembles the theory of evolution. It was the angels that occupied the original creation, not man.
After the rehabilitation of the earth, man was created and placed in the Garden of Eden. If one would trace the genealogies from Adam to Noah, you will find it is 1056 years. The flood came when Noah was 600 years old. (Genesis 7:6,11). Therefore the time from the creation of man to the flood is 1656 years. Should one desire a continued, concentrated study of the years from the flood to the birth of Christ, they would arrive at approximately 2,345 years. Thus, from Adam to Christ is close to the figure of 4,000 years. Add another 2,000 plus from Christ to the present, and you have man on the earth for only 6,000 years. Therefore, the Gap Principle, as documented in Scripture makes evolution an absolute impossibility. The Gap Principle made it possible for me to lead many of these people to Jesus Christ as their Savior, who had been influenced by the evolutionary philosophy.
A Chart & Comments Showing the Word Order of Genesis 1:1,2
(Read the Chart from Right to Left)
(The English Translation is Below the Hebrew)
“In the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth. (2). AND the earth WAS without form, and void; and darkness was (italicized, not in the original text) upon the face of the deep…”
1. “AND.” The Hebrew is “waw.” The question is, “Should “waw” be translated “and,” which would be a conjunction connecting Verses 1 and 2. Or, should “was” be translated as “but,” therefore being a disjunctive instead of the conjunctive “and?”
There are two principle reasons why “waw” should be translated “but” showing a disjunctive relationship between Genesis 1:1 and 2.
a. First, “but” would be the correct translation because in the Massoretic Text there is a small mark that is technically known as a “Rebhia.” This mark indicates that there is a break in the thought. In this case, between Verse 1 and Verse 2. In other words, stop and think or consider before reading Verse 2; because there is a change that has taken place. At the end of Verse 1, this mark appears in the Massoretic Text, showing a change of thought in Verse 2 from Verse 1. Therefore, the Hebrew “waw” should be translated “BUT” as a disjunctive, showing a change of thought will appear in Verse 2.
b. Second, Scripture in Isaiah 45:18 agrees perfectly with the Hebrew “waw” translated as “but,” being a disjunctive. “But” indicates that something happened that the earth became without form and void; because, in Genesis 1:1 it was not originally created that way. It was created in Verse 1 to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). When you take the Word of God, everything fits perfectly.
The Young Earth advocates want you to disregard the Hebrew and other Scriptures that expose their philosophy. They surely do not want you to be aware of the marking in the Massoretic Text at the end of Genesis 1:1, indicating the proper translation of the disjunctive “BUT” instead of the conjunctive (or connecting) “AND.” In the manuscript the reading would be:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. BUT (Hebrew “waw”) the earth was (became) without form, and void;”
2. “WAS.” The Hebrew for “was” is “hayah.” It is important to distinguish whether the verb “was” is in the manuscript, or if it has been inserted by the translators. It is wonderful that the King James translators made this distinction. When “was” appears not italicized, that indicates it is in the Massoretic Text. When you see “was” italicized, it indicates it does not appear in the manuscripts, but is understood. This is very important to notice when reading your King James Translation which makes this distinction.
Now, let us observe Genesis 1:2 where the verb “was” appears twice: first, as part of the Masoretic Text; and, second, as italicized, and not in the original text.
“And (BUT) the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was (italicized) upon the face of the deep…”
In the Hebrew the order of the words in a sentence is also important. When the verb is in the original text and follows the subject in the sentence, it indicates a change of tense and should be translated as “became” or “had become.” It is a change of something existing from what it had been. Since the earth had already been created in Genesis 1:1, the verb “hayah” being in the original text and following the subject, thus indicates a change had occurred with the earth after its original creation. Since a change in the earth had already taken place in the past, the verb “hayah” translated “was” should have been translated “became” or “had become,” because it is in reference to a past event. Remember, when the verb “hayah” is in the original text and follows the subject, it indicates a change of thought, event, or of something that had previously existed; but, now had changed.
Notice the second “was” in Verse 2 is italicized, showing it is not in the original. Let us read the last part of Genesis 1:2 as it would read in the original:
“…and darkness ("was" is omitted) upon the face of the deep.”
It appears the reason that the Hebrew “hayah” or English “became” is not in the original text between darkness and upon in Verse 2 is because darkness is included as part of the earth’s becoming without form and void. In other words, when God judged the earth and rendered it “without form and void,” darkness was part of that judgment. Therefore, the Holy Spirit saw no reason to use a verb concerning darkness as a separate judgment, as it was part of the original judgment of the earth becoming without form and void. It was not a separate judgment from “without form and void.”
May it also be noted that the Hebrew verb “hayah” is also translated “BECAME” in Genesis 2:7, as well as many other places in the Old Testament.
“And the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a living soul.”
Note: The Young Earth advocates refuse to acknowledge the mistranslation of the Hebrew verb “hayah” as “was” instead of “became” or “had become.” The reason is, should they acknowledge and concede to the correct translation from the Hebrew text, it would blow to pieces, like an atomic bomb!, their false hypothesis of a young earth. This is the reason they keep advocating to their readers and listeners to “Just read it as it is in the English.” Their theory they want you to believe is that in Genesis 1:1 when God created the heavens and the earth, that He created it in a ruined, uninhabitable condition, “without form and void.” To promote this false hypotheses, they must convince you to accept the mistranslation of the Hebrew verb “hayah” as “was” instead of “became” or “had become.” Their theory also contradicts Isaiah 45:18, as God’s Word is very specific that He did not create the earth in a ruined condition, “without form and void.”
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens” God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, NOT IN VAIN, HE FORMED IT TO BE INHABITED: I am the LORD, and there is none else.”
The word “vain” is the Hebrew “tohuw,” pronounced “to-hoo” and means, “to lie waste, desolation, wilderness, and without form” The young earth philosophy has no credibility when compared to the light of God’s Word. After reading a volume of their material from several different men, in my opinion, I deplore their trickery, shrewdness and deceit used to advocate their hypothesis. More will be said later concerning what some of these advocates really believe concerning their theology and some that will not reveal what they do believe.
May I introduce to you one of the many Bible expositors of the past who believed the Scriptures that refute the young earth advocates. His name is Arthur W. Pink. He was born in Nottingham, England, and died in Stornway, Scotland, in 1951. His wide-spread ministry included pastorates in Australia and the United States. He originated “Studies in the Scriptures,” a monthly magazine concerned solely with the exposition of Scripture. He was the author of many excellent books. One of these being “Gleaning in Genesis.” This work was copyrighted in 1922 by the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. I will quote from his book on Pages 10,11, concerning his analysis of Genesis 1:1,2.
“Certainly, the earth on the morning of its creation, must have been vastly different from its chaotic state as described in Genesis 1:2. “And the earth was without form and void” must refer to a condition of the earth much later than what is before us in the preceding verse. It is now over a hundred years ago since Dr. Chalmers called attention to the fact that the word “was” in Genesis 1:2 should be translated “became,” and that between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some terrible catastrophe must have intervened. That this catastrophe may have been connected with the apostasy of Satan, seems more than likely; that some catastrophe did occur is certain from Isaiah 45:18, which expressly declares that the earth was not created in the condition in which Genesis 1:2 views it.
What is found in the remainder of Genesis 1 refers not to the primitive creation, but to the restoration of that which had fallen into ruins. Genesis 1:1 speaks of the original creation; Genesis 1:2 describes the then condition of the earth six days before Adam was called into existence. To what remote point in time Genesis 1:1 conducts us, or as to how long an interval passed before the earth “became “ a ruin, we have no means of knowing; but if the surmises of geologists could be conclusively established, there would be no conflict at all between the findings of science and the teaching of Scripture. The unknown interval between the first two verses of Genesis 1, is wide enough to embrace all the prehistoric ages which may have elapsed; but all that took place from Genesis 1:3 onwards transpired less than six thousand years ago.
“In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” (Exodus 20:11). There is a wide difference between “creating” and “making”: to “create” is to call into existence something out of nothing; to “make” is to form or fashion something out of materials already existing. “In the beginning (whenever that was) God created the heaven and the earth”; subsequently (after the primitive creation had become a ruin) “the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” This Exodus Scripture settles the controversy which has been raised as to what kind of “days” are meant in Genesis 1, whether days of 24 hours, or protracted periods of time. In “six days,” that is, literal days of twenty-four hours duration, the Lord completed, work of restoring and re-fashioning that which some terrible catastrophe had blasted and plunged into chaos.”
He further states on Pages 11 and 12. “Rather must it be the part of scientists to bring their declarations into accord with the teaching of Genesis One, if they are to receive the respect of the children of God.” (Page 11).
“In like manner, if the teachings of Science square with Scripture, that goes to show the former are correct; if they conflict, that proves the postulates of Science are false.” (Page 12).
Continued in Part 5 next week...