Information Related to "Earth's Age: Does the Bible Indicate a Time Interval Between the First and Second Verses of Genesis?"
| Audio/Video |
Earth's Age: Does the Bible Indicate a Time
Interval Between the First and Second Verses of Genesis?
We are introduced to the
account of the creation of the earth in Genesis 1:1-2: "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness
was on the face of the deep."
The original Hebrew wording, combined with a comparison to other passages of Scripture,
has led some to conclude that a considerable time interval is indicated between these
two verses. If such an interval is indeed intended, there is no discrepancy between
the Bible record and scientific discoveries indicating that the earth is up to several
billion years old. If, on the other hand, there is no such gap, then the earth itself
must be only around 6,000 years old-which most scientists consider an impossibility.
Do other passages, as well as history, shed any light on this question?
Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated "Now the
earth became without form, and void . . ." as opposed to the
common rendering "The earth was without form, and void . . ."
Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah
must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created
in this disorderly way.
However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the term are
possible. Only the context of the chapter and book can determine which one is correct.
Gleason Archer, professor of biblical languages, comments: "It should be noted
in this connection that the verb was in Genesis 1:2 may quite possibly be
rendered 'became' and be construed to mean: 'And the earth became formless and void.'
Only a cosmic catastrophe could account for the introduction of chaotic confusion
into the original perfection of God's creation. This interpretation certainly seems
to be exegetically tenable . . ." (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,
Moody Press, Chicago, 1974, p. 184).
In a footnote Archer adds, "Properly speaking, this verb hayah never
has the meaning of static being like the copular verb 'to be.' Its basic notion is
that of becoming or emerging as such and such, or of coming into being . . .
Sometimes a distinction is attempted along the following lines: hayah means
'become' only when it is followed by the preposition le; otherwise
there is no explicit idea of becoming. But this distinction will not stand up under
analysis. In Gen(esis) 3:20 the proper rendering is: 'And Adam called the name of
his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all living.' No le
follows the verb in this case. So also in Gen(esis) 4:20: 'Jabal became the
father of tent dwellers.' Therefore there can be no grammatical objection raised
to translating Gen(esis) 1:2: 'And the earth became a wasteness and desolation'
(ibid.).
Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead
of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about
only recently, after geology revealed the strata of the earth to be very old. Thus
they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account
with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between
the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste
and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory."
The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the last century and to Cyrus Scofield
in this century.
Yet this interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been
discussed for close to 2,000 years. The earliest known recorded controversy on this
point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The
Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions
of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste."
The original language led them to understand that something had occurred which had
"laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.
The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis,
explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards."
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Christian Literature Publishing Company, Buffalo, 1917,
p. 342).
In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2, "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far,
if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular
re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?" (De Sacramentis Christianae
Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius
Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between
Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
the Dutch scholar Simon Epíscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally
been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, 1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered
evidence for the ancient origin of earth.
These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1
and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that it was
invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is
groundless.
Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur
Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying
the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands
on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries
on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis
of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become
a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations
in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7).
©1999 United Church of God, an International Associtaion
Related Information on Our Site:
Table of Contents that includes "Earth's Age: Does the Bible Indicate a Time Interval Between the First and Second Verses of Genesis?"
Origin of article "Earth's Age: Does the Bible Indicate a Time Interval Between the First and Second Verses of Genesis?"
Earth: