06. Creation

CREATION DoesGenesis 1:2teach that God really created the earth “without form and void”?

No. Indeed it is definitely denied elsewhere in Scripture that He did so. The primal creation is described in the first verse, and the second verse tells of the effect of some great catastrophe which occurred afterwards, leaving the earth without form and void. The second verse may be properly translated, “And the earth became without form and void.” The Hebrew word hayetha translated “was” in our common version, is often translated “became” elsewhere in Scripture.

What proof is there to confirm the theory, advanced by Dr. Scofield and others, of an indeterminate gap between the first and second verses of Genesis 1? The date of Genesis 1:1 is unrevealed. Beginning with the second verse we are told of a replenishing of the earth, following some great catastrophe between the first and second verses, which is not recorded. The Hebrew word hayetha, translated “was,” is many times rendered “became” elsewhere in Scripture. The Scriptural evidence in favor of this rendering in connection with the waste and desolate condition of the earth is well set forth in Pember’s Earth’s Earliest Ages, to which you are referred. Rotherham translates Genesis 1:2 as follows: “Now the earth had become waste and wild, and darkness was on the face of the roaring deep, but the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters.” And in a note on the words “waste and wild” he says: “Hebrew tohu wobohu. Evidently an idiomatic phrase, with a play on the sound (‘assonanced’). The two words occur together [elsewhere] only in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23; examples which favor the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow.” The Companion Bible has this note on the word translated “without form” or “waste”: “Not created tohu (Isaiah 45:18), but became tohu (Genesis 1:2; 2 Peter 3:5-6). ‘An enemy hath done this’ (Matthew 13:25; Matthew 13:28; Matthew 13:39. Compare 1 Corinthians 14:33).” The questions you ask would require almost a volume to answer in detail. Whether or not God could have created the rocks with fossils in them need not be discussed here, for the evidence shows that He did not so create them. The fossils are so numerous and can be so well identified with known forms of life that we have no hesitation in making that assertion. However, it does not follow that interpretations of the fossils are necessarily correct. We will state, however, that “the gap theory” no more implies a second creation after the primeval ruin than does the reconstruction of the earth after the deluge. The act described in verse one is the creation, the work of the six days, a reconstruction. If you will read George McCready Price’s “New Geology” you will find that there is no scientific need to assume great gaps or long periods in geology. He claims, and other noted geologists agree with him, that there are many evidences of cataclysms in the geological records, and that such catastrophes as Noah’s flood might account for both fossils and strata. He gives evidence to show that the uniformitarian theory of Lyell and Hutton is no longer unchallenged, and that the entire science of geology must be rewritten. It is true that scientists of the evolutionary school endeavor to laugh Price out of court; but he not only gives the results of his own investigations but also quotes from the best authorities in proof of them.

There are many truths of God’s Word involving difficulties, and the same is true of every theory of science, as scientists themselves are ready to acknowledge. While “the gap theory” may not be without its difficulties, the same would be true of any other theory. Let us remember that the account in Genesis is only an outline, and that the geological record is also very fragmentary. Two outlines may present difficulties and even contain what appear to be contradictions. Were we to know all that is implied in the story of Creation as given through Moses, and were we also in possession of the whole history of which the record of the rocks gives merely an outline, we should find no difficulties and no contradictions. Scientists constandy ask us to have faith where absolute proof is not forthcoming. God also requires the same thing, but at the same time gives such strong evidence of the truth of His Word that faith itself is built upon certainty.