Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Question: Genesis 1:28 (KJV) in the King James Version (KJV) contains the expression ‘replenish the earth’. Some have used this translation to support the ‘gap theory’, also known as the ‘Ruin-Reconstruction theory’, which involves the necessity for God to re-fill the earth after a pre-Adamic race had perished as a result of a so-called ‘Lucifer’s flood’. Is this interpretation correct?
We have seen that Latin re- originally meant ‘again’ but then developed new overtones. Before the Bible was translated, repleo, the word that gave us ‘replenish’, normally meant just ‘fill’. Here are some examples from Latin authors:
- fill up the number of (Livy)
- what they lacked in votes they made up for in noise (Ovid)
- he filled the battlefield with men (before the battle) (Livy)
- fill veins with blood (Livy)
- filled the crowd with his speech (Virgil)
- civil law full of right knowledge (Cicero)
There’s another English word that comes from repleo. It is ‘replete’. We can say ‘I am replete’, using a politer word than ‘full up’ with food. It doesn’t mean ‘full again’.
Now as to the Hebrew word itself: it is male’, the simple verb ‘fill’. (Strong’s concordance No. 4390.) In its various forms it occurs 306 times in the Old Testament. Only seven times does the KJV translate it as ‘replenish’, but 195 times ‘fill’, ‘filled’ or ‘full’.
Varnel Watson
give it a try bro Robert
Robert Franzen
Troy Day sure, I ask it in the other post & no one answers it. Now you ask it here & ask me to answer it lol funny – but hey, why not – let’s talk
Louise Cummings
I. Think that is where there was a world before this one. Because it says to replenish, or repopulate what is empty , that was there before. That does sound logical. Could it mean to keep filled up as the first goes down. Like you keep planting beans, to have green beans to eat every year. But God didn’t make a new world every year. But he put man here to replenish what was liking every year. Even children. Or food. We can’t make people , like God did. So we replenish more by having more children. We break up the ground to plant more beans over and over again. So could it mean just keep putting back what has gone down. Just a thought.
Allen Woodward
The key to unravelling the apparent confusion is the fact that languages continually change. Quite simply, the usage of this word has changed since the KJV appeared some 400 years ago (1611). Back then, people were more likely than nowadays to say things like ‘I am replete with happiness’, which is just another way of saying ‘I am full of happiness’. And replenish (fill) is the verb form of the adjective replete (full). People reading the KJV in earlier times would have likely understood replenish to mean exactly what the Hebrew word means, i.e. fill.
Nathan Ridgeway
Put more cans on the pantry shelf, man!
Robert Franzen
Yeah, doesn’t it mean fill again? I mean just open a dictionary – as Nathan said – restock the self right?
Easy enough right?
Isn’t this correct?
Rico Hero
Replenish is correct, if you can see the context of the chapter (earth destroyed in Gen 1:2) and the Bible (the life before Adam that was destroyed in Jeremiah). Both the King James and American Standard, they see it, Jeremiah 4:23-26 American Standard Version (ASV)
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills [a]moved to and fro. 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 26 I beheld, and, lo, [b]the fruitful field was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of Jehovah, and before his fierce anger.
Louise Cummings
Rico Hero I had a doctors appointment this morning I’ll check it out when I get home. Thanks for sharing.
Joe Absher
I’ve heard Jeremiah 4 used that way before. Do you have another parallel passage?
Joe Absher
Brother Rico Hero
Rico Hero
Joe Absher “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)
People assume that the mention of the word “water” in the above passage makes it a reference to Noah’s flood and the antediluvian world of man, but it is not. The phrase “willingly ignorant” and common sense should tell you otherwise. After all, anybody even remotely familiar with the Bible knows about Noah’s flood. No, the verse is speaking about something else, and the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. R. Johnson,
brian meylan
Rico, you need to keep the context of this passage by starting at verse 1. The context is is clearly referring to the beginning of creation verse 4. As you study the Bible you will see the earth was completely different prior to the flood of Noah and what we see today. You say this passage is not the flood of Noah, back up one chapter to 2 Peter 2: 5 “And spared not the old world but saved Noah the eighth person” This is clearly referring to the flood of Noah. ” the old world” would be pre Noah’s flood. Verse 5 in chapter 3 says “they willingly are ignorant” meaning they choose to ignore the facts of the flood of Noah and how it changed the earth. Verse 5 and 6 goes on to describe what happened to the “old world in ” ch 3. Today’s world is vastly different and one day there will be a new earth. We have the “old” (pre Noah’s flood) and “present” (post Noah’s flood) 2 Peter chapters 2 and 3.
Joe Absher
Brother sorry but 2 Peter 3 is a weak argument. It’s pretty obvious to me its the world that is willfully ignorant not the Bible reader.
Jason
A fair argument (valid point) can be made for either view. Certainly not a mountain worthy of dieing on, but intriguing nonetheless…
Peter’s use of the word “perish” in v6 could be a key. No mention of any survivors here, so we can’t be too sure it was Noah’s day and age being referred to. We know that when anything perishes at God’s doing… it’s gone, until God decides to make anew.
And because – “the world that then was” is what has perished, it calls for a new beginning. So could this be the “gap” between Gen 1:1 & 2? It’s possible, but who can say for certain.
V7 – ” but the heavens and the earth which are now ” becomes an interesting choice of words when comparing it with V6.
In my own mind, if the possibility of a destroyed Pre-Adam race existed and it’s fallout was an ice-age, it does explain the need for Jer 4 to be spoken, along with the mysterious but obviousl distinction between Fallen angels and demons, which many believe to be “disembodied spirits” who appear to desire nothing more than to occupy a person.
Rico Hero
Joe Absher The world willfully ignorant that the heavens were of old? 🙂 Its all good Joe, one day soon with the return of Jesus we will all be on the same page on this
Martha Eaves
And my friend He is coming soon!!!
Louise Cummings
I forgot to hit update where I misspelled a word. And lost my comments. I forgot to hit update.
Rico Hero
Louise Cummings This is how I see it : 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth(defined as dry land in verse 10). 2 The earth(dry land) was ( from the verb ‘to become’) without form( a waste/desolate), and void ( empty); and darkness [a]was on the face (surface)of the deep( waters ). And the (Holy)Spirit of God was hovering over the face (surface) of the waters(now covering the earth) .Gen.1:1-2. In Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form ( a waste/desolate), and void (empty);And the heavens, they had no light. ( the only time the heavens had no light and the earth desolate and empty were in Gen 1:2 in darkness).24 I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled,And all the hills moved back and forth.
25 I beheld, and indeed there was no man,And all the birds of the heavens had fled.26 I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness,And all its cities were broken down
At the presence of the Lord,By His fierce anger. Dake Note (partial): There has never been a time since Adam to this day , nor will there ever be a time from our day into all eternity that the earth has been or will be without man, or fruitful land, as seen by Jeremiah.
Joe Absher
Willfully ignorant of the flood.
Rico Hero
Joe Absher Good night Brother
Joe Absher
God bless you brother big dreams open doors wisdom courage and heart full of God’s promises in Jesus name
Allen Woodward
The key to unravelling the apparent confusion is the fact that languages continually change. Quite simply, the usage of this word has changed since the KJV appeared some 400 years ago (1611). Back then, people were more likely than nowadays to say things like ‘I am replete with happiness’, which is just another way of saying ‘I am full of happiness’. And replenish (fill) is the verb form of the adjective replete (full). People reading the KJV in earlier times would have likely understood replenish to mean exactly what the Hebrew word means, i.e. fill.
Jeffry Woolston
God told us all He wanted us to know. Why do some insist on speculating about things God did not tell us?
Jason
Greetings Jeffrey!
I say… “What’s the harm”?
We’re told that even angels themselves “long to look into these things.” Things that are revealed to us.
As long as things remain a mystery to us from God’s word when it’s obvious that He has laid out some bread crumbs for us,. it should cause us to seek Him for answers. It’s these kinds of topics that wetted my pre-salvation appetite!
Varnel Watson
Truth be told, Gap Theory is quite solid even without the word re-plenish in it. By the time you come to Adam and Eve it is pretty clear that Lucifer has fallen into destroying the world Gary Micheal Epping
Jevan Little
The Hebrew word means to fill
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero Troy Day Gary Micheal Epping a lot of talk here & still haven’t heard what it means;
A simple definition will suffice:)
Thank you
Rico Hero
The KJV translates Strong’s H4390 in the following manner: fill (107x), full (48x), fulfil (28x), consecrate (15x), accomplish (7x), replenish (7x), wholly (6x), set (6x), expired (3x), fully (2x), gather (2x), overflow (2x), satisfy (2x), miscellaneous (14x). Why do you think that is?
Jevan Little
Rico Hero it’s a bad translation?
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero
Ya still haven’t given a dictionary definition.
ok Rico you like the Strongs. That’s good for starters – which one of these multiple definitions is the one for the context?
The only reason one would know is because in this case the Strongs uses the word itself to describe itself – bad.
Otherwise you wouldn’t know what definition to apply to the context. This is why using the Strongs alone is so limited.
Take a look at the Young’s literal Translation for all 7 times the Hebrew word mala (maw-lay) is translated.
Robert Franzen
Please have patience, we’re going somewhere with all this:)
Robert Franzen
Jevan Little well Mr Jevon, I like the way you’re thinking; you’re on the right track, but there is another reason why the KJV translators choose this word – this answer is found in …
let’s let the others catch this too …
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen To replenish something is to refill it. Jevan Little The American Standard also uses replenish in Genesis 1:28 and in Gen 9:1. Do you think it is a bad translation in Gen 9:1?
Varnel Watson
Which dictionary definition are you looking for Robert Franzen It’s 14-15c words usage in a translation?
Varnel Watson
YET the KJV translators rendered The Hebrew word to fill as replenish Were they too Gap Theory supporters? Or simply the Bible backs Gap Theory in a wide range of ways? Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen
Jevan Little is the only one that got it right. Good job Javan!!!
Why?
The rest of you have made a common western fallacy – which is looking at an English word & applying a 20/21st Century western definition to an ancient Hebrew word.
You apply today’s understanding & never bother to look at the Hebrew definition from a good lexicon or Hebrew word study work.
The Youngs Literal Translation got it right all 7 times, so do most of the newer translations.
The word simply means “to fill.”
Did the KJ translators get it wrong?
No – so why did they use that word – replenish?
The answer is common sense – you must use the same dictionary they used in 1611.
Words evolve – like the word “gay” used to mean “happy,” but today has been hijacked & taken on new meaning.
Same with the word “Replenish.” It means to fill completely – as in the original, first time filling.
Troy Day
Rico Hero
Gary Micheal Epping
Martha Eaves
Thank you Robert Franzen, this could not be any clearer and it is the way I have always saw it. God told them simply to fill the earth.
Robert Franzen
The dictionary they used in 1611 was the Oxford English Dictionary.
Here’s an excerpt from my book:
““The prefix “re” went through some changes over time as well. In ancient Latin it once had a meaning of ‘again,’ but by the time the Bible went into Latin it had lost much of its meaning. We see this in the later French word remplir, which doesn’t mean ‘refill,’ but ‘fill.’ In late Latin it was re-in-plere, and re- had already lost its basic idea of ‘again.’ In many other words it now meant ‘completely’ or ‘altogether.’ Compare ‘research,’ meaning to ‘search completely.’
We notice also that two of the meanings in history include ‘making full.’ In similar English words we have this meaning: ‘refresh’ means to make fresh; ‘relax’ to make lax; ‘release’ to make loose or free. And when the KJV was translated, ‘replenish’ was just a scholarly word for fill.’ They almost certainly came to use it because an old word ‘plenish’ was dying out….” 3 (Emphasis added).
Replenish was merely a parallel word to fill, and the prefix re- did not mean again (in 1611), but rather meant completely.”
Varnel Watson
you own an actual 1611 Oxford English Dictionary?
Robert Franzen
Troy Day no, I don’t actually own one – I did a lot of research – & spent a lot of time in one of the largest theological libraries on the east coast in Richmond, VA
Union theological seminary (I use the library sometimes not the school). 3 million plus books there
Robert Franzen
I have the actual 1611 quote of the list of definitions of the word Replenish – that I didn’t post here but the point was/is the principle – we MUST get our biblical definitions & understanding from the original language & time it was written.
The Strongs is not going to cut it – one has to go deeper to find the right definition for the particular context.
Remember, there are 7 nuance in Hebrew & so one word can have 7 twists to it according to the context.
Context always controls the meaning of words!
Varnel Watson
quote ? from the Genesis website? Please… You should know better to consult the original sources brother
Robert Franzen
If we are all on the same page, we can move on – taking this simple, yet vitality important principle back to verse 2.
Robert Franzen
To cut thru all the epistemology, go straight to the Hebrew, like Jevan did.
We must have good original language tools to keep from making common western mistakes.
One of the many I use & will show again for verse 2 is the
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. There are several others I like to use as well.
Ok: Now let’s use this same basic hermeneutic principle & use it in verse 2.
Troy Day
Gary Micheal Epping
Rico Hero
Jevan Little
Varnel Watson
Take it way brother You dont need my help
Robert Franzen
Troy Day well, I would like your help brother – we have to be a team & impact the world for Jesus! But a part of the discipleship aspect is teaching good principles of interpretation.
We don’t have to believe the same exact thing except for the concrete basics of the Gospel:)
Varnel Watson
you can invite me or Joe Absher to preach at your church We can then team up and help you as much 🙂
Robert Franzen
Troy Day lets make it the mission field & you got a deal ????
(The church folk don’t need us – except for teaching)
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen , You wrote, “Same with the word “Replenish.” It means to fill completely – as in the original, first time filling.” As in the original , first time filling, is a YEC bias that you have.
Rico Hero
Oxford dictionary website regarding the word replenish: snip, Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘supply abundantly’): from Old French repleniss-, lengthened stem of replenir, from re- ‘again’ (also expressing intensive force) + plenir ‘fill’ (from Latin plenus ‘full’).end snip.
Varnel Watson
This view of the word “Replenish.” comes from a very specific article on the Genesis creationism website that purposed to advance its scientific humanistic creationism theory by putting down Gap Theory {somehow} I’ve already shown the words is not needed to Gap Theory though it complements it as well as the whole Bible. Some elezabethian enlglish scholars have actually proven that
replanish means to replant
and it indeed refers to the commandment God gave to Adam to work the land
as well as what Able did in regard to Cain’s grain sacrifice
This meaning actually fits the Genesis creation story very nicely and there is no need to exponentiate on what someone said that someonelse wrote what some fictional book may have used the words for We should stick to the BIBLE and the biblical meaning of the word especially in regard to the tohu-va-bohu state of the earth that is without question I am surprised Pete Fiske has not jumped on this one yet as it helps his theory at this state of the current discussion
Rico Hero
From the ICR webpage Re Replenish the earth snip, Admittedly, “replenish” is a permissible translation of the Hebrew, mâlê. Both “fill” and “refill” are legitimate translations since the translators had a choice to make in translating God’s mandate as given to Adam.
As a matter-of-fact, in the King James Old Testament, mâlê was translated “replenish” or “replenished” only seven times. In six of these instances, “replenish” was indeed a more appropriate rendering than “fill.” The most obvious is at Genesis 9:1, in which God told Noah to “replenish the earth” after the Flood.
Robert Franzen
Ok, now that everybody is scrambling & researching a simple word:
Bottom line it simply means to fill & the KJ translators used an old French word to keep it alive.
The gap theory doesn’t rise or fall on the word, like it does on one word in verse 2 – but if we all agree that replenish simply means “fill completely,”
AND more importantly ,
all have learned this vitality important principle of interpretation we can go to verse 2.
Varnel Watson
No. The Gap Theory is Biblical and does not depend on the word re-planish at all No luck with such strawman argument
Allen Wodward
Difficulties With The Gap Theory by David Guzik
Though there are many good Bible believing Christians who accept the Gap Theory, there are some serious problems with this point of view that make it difficult, if not impossible, to accept.
1.No Mention Of Creation
To begin with, it is hard to imagine that the entire creation of the universe is passed over in only one verse and the bulk of the record deals with re-creation. According to the Gap Theory, there is no clear word from God concerning the original creation. Nothing is known as to the order of events or its history.
2.Not The Historical View
Furthermore, the historical view of Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Protestant interpreters is that Genesis is the account of God’s original creation of the universe. The Gap Theory holds that only one verse, Genesis 1:1, describes the original creation. The Gap Theory dilutes the majestic account in Genesis of God’s creation.
3.Genesis Is Not A Cryptic Account
Genesis 1 is written as a straightforward account of God’s creation – not some cryptic record. If God had meant to inform us of a gap between the first two verses, He could have clearly done that. There is nothing in the Genesis creation account that requires or even hints at a gap. Something has to be read into the account that is not obviously there.
4.No Earlier Creation Taught Anywhere
There is no verse of Scripture that teaches there was an earlier creation. If there were a creation before Genesis 1:2, there should be at least one verse that explicitly says that. But there is none.
5.Contrary To Scripture
Not only are there no explicit verses about a previous creation, the Scripture argues against this idea. Genesis 2:3,4 which sums up the previous chapter of God’s work says:
Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens (Genesis 2:3,4).
This is creation, not re-creation. Thus, the context itself speaks of creation rather than re-creation.
Heaven
Also mentioned in Genesis 2:3,4 is the creation of the heavens. What was completed in the six days was not just the work of God upon the earth but also heaven. They were created during the six days, not long before it.
In addition, Exodus 20:11 says:
For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.
This passage does not say that God created the heavens and the earth before the first day as the Gap Theory teaches but rather in six days. All that is in heaven was created in six days. Everything.
6.No Direct Statement Of Judgment
There is no direct statement anywhere is Scripture that a divine judgment occurred between the first two verses in Genesis. While Scripture, at various times, does speak of God’s judgment on the angels and the earth, there are no passages that speaks of it being before the creation narrative in Genesis 1:1-31. Those who hold the Gap Theory must read this into the passage.
7.No Death Before Sin
The Gap Theory says that millions of animals lived and died not only before Adam, but also before the fall of Satan. But how could there be death in a sinless world? The Bible says that death was a result of sin:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men (Romans 5:12).
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:21).
The Bible also says that the groaning and travailing in pain of the animal kingdom (Romans 8:20-22) is a result from the Edenic curse after Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden.
8.God Made The World Very Good
At the end of creation we are told, ‘God saw everything that He had made, and behold it was very good.’ In this verse we have two superlatives: ‘everything’ and ‘very good.’ This could hardly be said if a part of the world had already been destroyed and if the angels had fallen into sin. The Gap Theory builds our present world on the ruins of a former one. How could it be very good?
In addition, the angels, as well as the rest of creation, were seemingly still in a state of perfection at the end of the sixth day. Everything was perfect everywhere.
9.Death A Result Of Adam’s Sin
Humanity was created to have dominion over creation (Psalm 8, Hebrews 2:5-8). It was not until they deliberately rejected God’s commandment that sin first appeared on earth. The judgment upon humanity and the animal kingdom was a result of Adam’s sin – there was no death before this time of humans or animals. The Bible says.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned – (Romans 5:12).
The Bible does not restrict death from sin to human death. Sin brought death to the animal world as well. The Bible is clear that creation was made subject to futility – it was not created that way.
for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope (Romans 8:20).
10.Darkness Not Necessarily Evil
The Bible does not teach that physical darkness is always equated with evil. The psalmist wrote.
You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl (Psalm 104:20)
Genesis 1:2 records the darkened state of the earth before the creation of the sun or before the light from the sun came through. It should not be assumed to refer to something evil. Of necessity, there would have been darkness before light. It was only later in Scripture that darkness was used as a symbol of evil. There is nothing evil suggested in the context of Genesis.
The idea is that there was darkness before light merely shows that creation was in progress. The Bible says there was an evening, and hence darkness, at all six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13, 18-19). There is no statement anywhere of God’s disapproval of the darkness.
Darkness can symbolize evil, yet darkness itself is not evil. The Gap Theory confuses the symbol with the thing symbolized.
11.Plants And Animals
The Gap Theory teaches that the plants and animals of the previous world were destroyed and fossilized. This means that they could not be genetically related to the plants and animals of the present world. Yet the majority of the fossilized plants and animals are identical in form to their modern counterparts. How can this be without any direct line of descent?
12.Too Much Made Out Of The Hebrews Conjunction Waw
The Hebrew word waw, usually translated and is a simple conjunction. Gap Theorists attempt to make it a word that indicates a strong contrast to that which was previously stated. Yet it is merely the simple term for and. Waw is used thousands of times in the Old Testament without emphasizing anything important. To make it important in Genesis 1:2 is inconsistent with its overall usage. A crucial doctrine should not be based upon this one word.
Instead of but the verse should read something like now the earth was . . .
Consequently, there is no grammatical reason to have a break between the verses.
13.Was Or Became?
Those who attempt to translate the verb hayah became in Genesis 1:2 do so without much justification. The normal rendering of the word is was. Most scholars testify that the translation of became in this passage is doubtful, if not impossible to uphold. Therefore, to base this theory on a suspect translation is wrong from the start.
Septuagint
Though in some instances the Septuagint translators rendered the verb hayah as became they did not render it such in Genesis 1:2. This demonstrates that they understood the word to mean was and not became. There should be a compelling reason for translating it became here. However, nothing in the text suggests this translation. It comes from a desire to harmonize science and Scripture
Hence, the burden of proof is upon those who would make the word say anything different than how it is usually (or most often) understood.
Bernard Ramm comments on the Gap Theorist attempt to make crucial points about the Hebrew words for and and was.
The entire interpretation of geology and Genesis is made to hinge on secondary meanings of two Hebrew words. To indicate that in some cases waw may mean but, and that hayah means became, does not give full warrant to insert these meanings in Genesis 1:2 and require all geology to conform (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science And Scripture, Eerdmans, 1954, p. 139).
14.Unformed And Unfilled
The phrase tohu wa bohu, translated without form and void does not necessarily assume some type of judgment as the Gap Theory supposes. The phrase can mean unformed and unfilled. It is a neutral term describing God’s unfinished creation. The early earth was at a stage that was not ready for humanity and the rest of creation. That which was previously unformed was then formed and filled by the Creator. The words do not necessitate judgment as has been contended – it merely describes the earth in an undeveloped state. On the first day, the water was covering the land mass. There was no dry land and no people. The earth had been neither formed nor filled.
15.No Context Of Judgment In Creation Account
Furthermore, the meaning of the expression tohu wa bohu, in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23, often cited as proof for the Gap Theory, does not necessarily mean chaos as Gap Theorists argue. The details in the context of Isaiah 34 and Jeremiah 4, where the phrase tohu wa bohu is used, make judgment clear. The context of Genesis is not one of judgment. It is not proper to read the circumstances of judgment in Isaiah and Jeremiah back into Genesis where no judgment is required, or even hinted at.
16.In The Beginning
Jesus did not seem to believe there was any gap of time from the original creation to the creation of Adam.
But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female (Mark 10:6).
He made them male and female at the beginning, not after a gap of billions of years.
17.Isaiah 45
Isaiah 45:18 is more of an argument against the Gap Theory. It says that God did not create the universe in vain. This means He considered His creation to be good as Genesis 1:31 states.
18.Jeremiah 4
The context of Jeremiah 4 has nothing to do with the original creation. In context, the passage is about the destruction of the Holy Land, not the entire earth. The one looking at this is Jeremiah the prophet. It is much more in context to have him looking forward to a destruction, not looking back. In addition, this passage speaks of survivors after the judgment. There would have been no survivors of the judgment that the Gap Theory proposes.
19.Isaiah 24:1
The statement in Isaiah 24:1 does not deal with the original creation in Genesis. The previous verses referred to the destruction of Babylon and Tyre while the following verses refer to the destruction of the Holy Land.
20.No Parallel Principle
The gap principle that finds itself in other Old Testament passages, is not parallel to Genesis. The other passages containing gaps are all prophetic. There are none that deal with what has happened in history. Thus, there is no parallel between the first two verses of Genesis and other portions of Scripture where a gap is clearly taught.
21.Created And Made
The distinction made between the Hebrew words for created and made is not valid. Contrary to the Gap Theory, the words can be used interchangeably. John Whitcomb comments:
Genesis 1:21 states that ‘God created [bara] the great sea-monsters . . .’ while verse 25 states that God made [asah] the beasts of the earth . . . Surely we are not to think that the sea creatures were directly created on the fifth day, but land animals were merely ‘appointed’ or ‘made to appear’ on the sixth day! All those who hold that bara and ‘asah cannot be used on the same kind of divine activity are faced with a serious difficulty here. In fact, the difficulty is so severe that the New Scofield Reference Bible, in support of this distinction, suggests that the beasts which were made on the sixth day (vs. 25) were actually created on the fifth day (p. 2, note #2)! (John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972, p. 128).
In addition, we have the two words, bara and asah, used side by side for the same act, the creation of man in Genesis 2:7. They are also used synonymously in Genesis 1:26 and 2:4 where both terms describe the same event.
22.Ezekiel 28 And The Fall Of Satan
Ezekiel 28, rather than referring to the earthly Garden of Eden, more likely speaks of a heavenly place. Satan was cast out of the Garden of Eden to the ground (Ezekiel 28:16). The Eden Ezekiel speaks of is not a garden of trees and flowers but composed of precious stones and stones of fire (Ezekiel 28:13,14,16). This is similar to the description of the Holy City in heaven (Revelation 21:10-21).
May Not Be His Fall
This text may have been a reference to the fall of Satan but it is ambiguous at best. We should not attempt to build doctrines on difficult passages – particularly ones that are highly poetic. Even if it did describe Satan’s original fall there is no reason to insert it between the first two verses of Genesis.
23.Time Of Judgment Of Angels Is Not Specified
The passages in Scripture that speak of God’s judgment of the rebellious angels (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6) do not place the judgment before the creation account in Genesis 1:2-31. No specific time is given for their rebellion.
24.Enough Time For Angelic Rebellion
There certainly was time for the angelic rebellion to take place after day six of creation and before the Fall of humanity in Genesis three. Even if only one day passed from the sixth day of creation and the fall, it is certainly enough time for the angels to rebel and be judged. God judgment would have been instantaneous.
In addition, angels live in a different dimension than us. Time for them is not necessarily the same as for us. Consequently there was sufficient time, from our perspective, for them to fall.
25.Hebrews 4:3
The idea that Hebrews 4:3 refers to the downfall of the world, the catastrophe of Genesis 1:2, is not supported by the evidence. The Greek word katabola means foundation or beginning, not downfall.
26.God’s Failure
The Gap Theory must also assume there was a prior creation, lasting millions of years, that closely resembled the present creation. This creation, however, ended in failure. The animals of the previous creation did not fulfill God’s original purpose – so He destroyed them. In addition, in the second creation, God made the plants and actly like the first ones.
Furthermore, since Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, this prior creation lacked God’s crown of creation – humanity.
Therefore the Gap Theory would have God failing twice: first, His purpose was not accomplished in the animal and plant kingdom; second, He failed to crown His creation with man. This is inconsistent with God’s nature – one that does not fail to accomplish His purposes.
27.No Pre-Adamic Human-like Creatures
Although Gap Theorists contend that pre-Adamic human-like creatures existed, there is no biblical warrant for this. The Bible knows nothing about such people.
28.Why Create Light Again?
If the sun, moon, and stars were part of the original creation in Genesis 1:1, then why did God have to create light (Genesis 1:3). There would have been light for the entire time of the alleged gap.
29.Contradicts Modern Unbelieving Geology
Although Gap theorists attempt to harmonize Genesis with modern geology, the proposed harmonization will not work. Modern geology is based upon the idea of uniformitarianism – all processes that we observe today have continued at the same rate from the beginning. Since the present rates are the same as the past, there is no room for a worldwide catastrophe. The geological ages cannot be separated from the theory of evolution.
30.No Connection Between Geology And Genesis
Because Genesis involves a re-creation, and the present-day fossils belong to a destroyed world, there can be no correlation between Scripture and geology. The Bible, therefore, has absolutely nothing to say about this subject. Therefore it is entirely in the hands of geologists, and we, of necessity, must believe what they tell us about the geological record.
31.Discounts Genesis Flood
If the present-day fossils are a result of a Luciferic flood that happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, then one must assume that Noah’s Flood left no trace whatsoever. The fossil evidence can better be explained by a Flood that we know existed rather than a flood in which Scripture does not mention.
32.Not Replenish
The word translated replenish in the King James Version is the Hebrew verb maleh. It means to fill. It is the same word used in Genesis 1:22 fill the waters. It has no idea of replenish. All modern translations render this word as fill. In 16th century Elizabethan English replenish meant to fill completely, not fill again.
33.No Judgment On Earth
There is no passage in Scripture that teaches that God judged the earth because of the sin of the angel who became the devil. Furthermore, why would God kill the inhabitants of the earth for an angel who sinned? The Bible continually stresses that God is a righteous God.
Far be it from you to do such a thing – to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Genesis 18:25).
Judging the earth for a sin of an angel who lived in the heavenly realm does not make sense.
34.Recent Idea
Finally, it must be pointed out that the Gap Theory is a relatively recent idea. It was first popularized in 1814 by Thomas Chalmers in an attempt to reconcile Genesis with long geological ages. The geological studies of the 19th century were at odds with a recent creation. The Gap Theory gave the Bible the needed time that the geologists said was necessary for the earth to come to its present state.
In the twentieth century, the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible, advocating the Gap Theory, caused it to become enormously popular among the laity. Yet before this time it was hardly ever considered a possibility by interpreters of Genesis. It is only when modern science taught that the age of the earth was, at least, millions of years old, did the Gap Theory become popular.
When the new discipline of geology was claiming long ages for the earth, many Bible students, with no way of scientifically refuting these claims, accepted the long ages of the earth.
Rather than admitting that the Bible taught something different, the Genesis creation account was then reinterpreted in light of the claims of geology. One of the ways that Genesis was reinterpreted was to find a gap between the first two verses of the Bible. However, until modern geology came on the scene, no one proposed a gap between these verses.
35.Gap Theory Is Self-Defeating
There is a major dilemma for the Gap Theory. If the judgment of God with His Luciferic flood rapidly created the entire fossil record that we now find, then there is no evidence for geologic ages as Gap theorists believe. But if there were no geologic ages, there is no need to argue for large amounts of time as the theory of evolution, and the Gap Theory, proposes. Thus the original need for the theory – to fit the long geological ages into the framework of the Bible – is done away with.
36.Wrong Way Of Looking At Subject
The Gap Theory is an example of the wrong way to look at issues of the Bible and science. The Bible should be the source that we use to interpret the scientific data, not vice versa. The Gap theory arose when modern science began to argue for an ancient earth and universe. It was an attempt to harmonize the lengthy time periods, or ages, with Genesis. The Gap Theory did not arise merely from a study of Scripture, it arose to solve the problem of the Bible and time. This fact alone should make the entire theory suspect.
Summary On Gap Theory
Though the Gap Theory attempts to solve the time problem and the fossil problem, it is beset with problems. First, something has to be read into the text that is not obviously there. There is not one verse in the Bible that explicitly teaches an earlier creation.
Also, the Gap Theory breaks the connection between the first two verses of the Bible where the text has no break. It builds our world on the ruins of a former world with no connection between the two. It leaves the original creation to just one verse. All of these problems make the theory highly suspect. Although those who hold to the Gap theory are well-meaning Bible believers, the facts, both biblical and scientific,do not justify this view. A better answer needs to be found.
Robert Franzen
Troy Day I literally just got done saying – “The gap theory does NOT rise or fall on the word replenish” …
But I did say it does rise or fall on 1 Word in verse 2.
Rico Hero
The word was.
Varnel Watson
Robert Franzen I could not find the word explained in your book. Would you please point me to the page where you discuss it Thanks
Robert Franzen
Troy Day chapter 9.
Varnel Watson
Still cant find – maybe you can post the exact passage
Rico Hero
Troy Day I just read Roberts book preview in google books( im home sick today). He argues in chapter 9 that the Hebrew word Maw-lay(Strongs 4390) and in all its forms, never, ever means to fill again. That KJV translated Mal-lay in 7 places as replenish–which meant “fill completely” in the translators time. Robert prefers Youngs translation of Maw-lay ” to fill” in the 7 places the KJV translated replenish.
Varnel Watson
anything on ch9? – he claims ch9 says it all
Robert Franzen
Troy Day I cant believe you guys are still talking about this. It’s like a cow looking at a new gate – that’s actually been there the whole time.
The Hebrew word means “fill.” Period.
It’s that simple – can we move on please.
Rico Hero
Hey, what happened to Gary Micheal Epping
he took off?
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero could you send the link to google books that you found I never knew it was on there & cant find it.
Thanks
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen here is the link https://books.google.ca/books/about/Creation_Under_Fire_from_Within_the_Chur.html?id=BoQ-j_tIZ5EC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen I find it amazing that the KJV translators —even if they did not have the meaning for replenish that we have today, they still got it right. At least in the other 6 places according to ICR. You agree? snip From the ICR webpage Re Replenish the earth snip, Admittedly, “replenish” is a permissible translation of the Hebrew, mâlê. Both “fill” and “refill” are legitimate translations since the translators had a choice to make in translating God’s mandate as given to Adam.
As a matter-of-fact, in the King James Old Testament, mâlê was translated “replenish” or “replenished” only seven times. In six of these instances, “replenish” was indeed a more appropriate rendering than “fill.” The most obvious is at Genesis 9:1, in which God told Noah to “replenish the earth” after the Flood.
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero have you read anything I wrote? ?
The KJ translators got it RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
You people today get it wrong by not doing your proper homework – thinks it means “refill/fill again.”
Now that we all know that replenish simply means to fill – let’s move on (for the 16th time – wow, this is worse than teaching a class of kindergartners.
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero Thank you for the link – I had no idea how it got on google books
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen settle down brother and look at it from a divine perspective. Only God could have seen in the future to what the word replenish would eventually be defined. The most obvious is at Genesis 9:1, in which God told Noah to “replenish the earth” after the Flood.
Robert Franzen
The word replenish is so easy to find original meaning. The “was” in v 2 is also fairly easy, but the phrase “Without form & void,” I’m doubtful I can clear that up for ya’s if ya can’t get “replenish”
?
Jeffry Woolston
Without form and void simply means that God had not put his hands upon it to “form it” into what it would become and thus was “void” without His purpose which was yet to be determined by the Creator (God).
Jeffry Woolston
Genesis 1:1 Gives us a simple statement of fact concerning the creation and thus the beginning of all that we see and know as the planet earth.
Genesis 1:2 Informs us of the state of earth before God began to “form it”. Without being “formed” by His hand, the earth remained “void” (absent of His divine purpose) and thus full of “darkness”.
The following 6 days unfold and reveal the “forming” of earth and it’s inhabitants by the triune Creator, God.
Rico Hero
Jeffry Woolston What about the water in verse 2?
Jeffry Woolston
Rico Hero and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God was simply (in my opinion) surveying things and determining how He would form what He had created.
Varnel Watson
God was simply surveying things after the flood of satans fall What does this mean Robert Franzen ???
The word replenish is so easy to find original meaning.
Jeffry Woolston
Troy Day SO you say that God was trying to figure out how He was going to fix what Lucifer and his fallen angels had broken? I am not drinking that “koolaid”. LOL
Gary Micheal Epping
So, God had laid the cornerstone of the earth in verse 2 as a big blob covered with water in total darkness. I have trouble believing “the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).at the sight of this. I thinke they would have shrieked out in horror. Of course, they would need x-ray vision to see all of this as there was no light. Hey! I thought all of God’s creative acts during the 6 deys started with “And God said, Let.” Don’t see one here until verse 3. Must be part of the confusion and chaos of trying to understand Robert’s world.
Jeffry Woolston
Gary Micheal Epping 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? “Morning stars”
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:16 (On the 4th day).
Gary Micheal Epping
Jeffry Woolston So what do you think the morning stars are and who are the sons of God? Where did the light in verse 3 come from, as it does say day 1 there?
Robert Franzen
Jeffry Woolston exactly right Jeffry
Robert Franzen
Jeffry Woolston that’s right Jeffry inverse to the earth was not yet formed to his purpose and not yet filled with his desires. He took three days forming, and three days filling. Very simple – all original creation, no re-creation
Robert Franzen
I also have a very original and unique chapter on the word darkness in verse two
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen Except that the 6 days do not mention forming and filling; those are your additions.
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen Other words can better describe the chapter than original and unique.
Jeffry Woolston
Gary Micheal Epping Oh really, God did not form man from the dust of the earth? and what about chapter 1: 22 And God blessed them, saying,”Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.”
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping what’s an addition is a non-evident, unscriptural gap. The whole chapter is a description of forming & filling in an absolutebeginning of all things created physical – God formed everything to sustain life, then He filled the earth with living things
Gary Micheal Epping
Jeffry Woolston We are talking about verse 2. I have no arguments about what described in the 7 days.
Gary Micheal Epping
iJO 1:5 says “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” There no way that the darkness of verse 2 can be a part of God’s creative process. Where God is there is light. When He is absent there is darkness.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping I can Scripturally prove that God created darkness as well – & again, one must pay close attention to CONTEXT.
Are ya ready
Wait: let me ask this first. As you quoted from 1Jh. God is light & in Him is no darkness.
– Now before anything created physical, was there any darkness?
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen It is not a matter of whether God can create darkness or not. Stick with the point, and stop flopping around like a flounder. As I said, where God is there is no darkness. Verse 2 is full of darkness, is void, and unformed. Sorry, but God was not there at that time creating. If he was, there would be no darkness.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping wow, you guys get nasty smh.
Gary my brother, take a breath & let’s read some Scripture:
Gen.1:2 ends with God hovering over the waters in DARKNESS.
Now please allow me to show you how that is possible:
…
Robert Franzen
There are over 12 verses in Scripture saying that God covers Himself or shields His brilliance of Glory by a gloomy thick darkness.
Darkness can be an absences of light; it is used metaphorically;
& it is used to describe that God has come near
Sound strange? Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping This word is the veiled glory of Yahweh,
Just as the darkness enveloping his appearance on Mount Sinai, & many other places like when God made covenant with Abram & a horror of great darkness came – it was God in the scene!
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping
Isaiah 45:7 – God creates darkness:
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
The Bible teaches that God covers His brilliant Glory to avoid His full exposure in the universe. If He had not done this, all physical matter would not be able to exist in the direct presence of His full Glory and Brilliance, and would probably evaporate. We see this happening when God unveils Himself fully for the first time to execute the Great White Throne Judgment in Rev. 20: 11. The whiteness speaks of His purity and full direct Shechinah Glory, in which Heaven and earth fled away at the face of God. The face of God speaks of His very presence, being right before Him in His unveiled Glory. We know this because the Bible says God is clothed with or dwells behind thick gloomy clouds of darkness: Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11; Deut. 5:22; II Sam. 22:10; I Kg. 8:12; II Chron. 6:1; Job 22:13; Job 38:9; Ps. 97:2; and especially Ps. 18:9, and 11, which states, “He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet.” And verse 11, “He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies” (KJV).
The Hebrew word for darkness in Ps. 18:9 is Strong’s 6205 (arapel) and the word in verse eleven is #2822, (hoshek) and when #6205 is used it is most always is seen together with #2822, (Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11, 5:22-23; II Sam. 22:10-12; I Kg. 8:12; Job 38:9; Ps. 97:2; Isa. 60:2; Jer. 13:16; Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15).
This Hebrew word for darkness means dark cloud, darkness, gross darkness, thick darkness, and some translations use the words, gloom, and thick gloom. I have found the TWOT again confirms what we’re teaching here, as it states:
“This word is a masculine noun employed respecting the veiled glory of Yahweh, the darkness enveloping his appearance on Mount Sinai. Descriptions of the glory of God in the OT seem deliberately vague, perhaps to preserve the element of reverential awe respecting the wonder of beholding tokens of God, and also, perhaps, to remind one of the horror of sin in his presence. Hence, while the people stand afar off, Moses comes near to the “thick darkness” enveloping Yahweh (Ex. 20:21). Indeed, the very mountain visited by God became an awesome mountain, “burning to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness (hoshek), cloud (anan), and thick gloom (wa arapel).”
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen Stop popping stuff in from your book. Write your own comments please.
Varnel Watson
Please tell me another one Robert Franzen Rico Hero
The Oxford English Dictionary was originally published in fascicles between 1884 and 1928
KJV translators would have been familiar with the usage of the English language described in the Cambridge dictionary – first edition 1584 which clearly states:
Replenish – to fill something again, or return something to its earlier condition
It is exactly what KJV means by replanish in Gen 1:28
GOD commanded Adam and Eve to replenish/fill AGAIN the earth in order to RETURN it to its EARLIER condition
Robert Franzen
Troy Day oh wow Troy, that is worth investing:
However, now open your Strongs (or if you have better tools/works) look up what the word means from its Hebrew definition.
You’re getting all mingled up on English
Don’t complicate this – especially to fit your preconceived idea from what you learned from other human teachers
Varnel Watson
Strongs??? ahaha – yeah this is a bad one Robert Franzen You messed up BIG TIME on the Oxford dictionary – got to admit and own that 🙂 As I often tell some of my students, this is what happens when you copy paste from the internet without thinking Let’s hope AGTS dont call in the morning to ask you for their MDiv back 🙂
Robert Franzen
Troy Day that’s right – that’s what happens when you copy & paste from the internet for sure!
Troy my brother, I would love to spend some one-on-one time with you to help you with how to do research.
You made the same western mistake AGAIN.
You gave the modern/today’s definition again for the word replenish the Cambridge online dictionary. This is NOT a definition from the 1500’s
Cambridge University published its first book in 1584 and is the oldest publishing house in the world.
– it’s first BOOK not Dictionary!
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
started it venture (before it was officially called the Oxford),
was planned as a four-volume, 6,400-page work that would include all English language vocabulary from the Early Middle English period (1150 AD) onward, plus some earlier words if they had continued to be used into Middle English.
– which the first evidence of use is dated 1500-1575; a further 44,500 were added between 1576 and 1650. The considerable number of words traced to the period 1550-1650 is seen in this timeline which charts how new words were added to the English language from the eleventh century.
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen The 1599 Geneva Bible uses replenish in Gen.9:1 And God [a]blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Bring forth fruit, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero that’s great Rico, & your point is …?
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Cambridge dictionary – first edition 1584 which clearly states:
Replenish – to fill something again, or return something to its earlier condition
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Surely you do not deny that in Genesis 9:1 it was literally a refilling of the earth?
Varnel Watson
Robert Franzen You sound like a child who is trying to belittle an adult. Plagiarism is a very serious offence
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen So, are you reading verses 1-3 as one long sentence about creation on day one? I thought you said earlier that all three were independent clauses? Why does the “And God said Let” statement begin at verse 3.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping No, I never said that. In fact there are NO Periods in Hebrew. The first place to probably put the first period is at the end of vs 5.
It’s one long sentence.
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen There are periods in English, and for good reason the translators of the english bible put them in. I will stick with what they have said, as I believe their work is divinely inspired. If you want to put in only one period after verse five, then create your own bible, RFV.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping I can see that you haven’t formal training in biblical criticism;
With typical western thinking, you think I’m saying something against the KJV. A little more holistic thinking is called for – in other words, when I refer to the Hebrew (like any good scholar does) that is not saying the English version is wrong. English translators put in periods, paragraphs, chapters & verses. All that is fine & necessary for readability. The periods are fine where they are in English.
I think the confusion is coming in from a belief that the KJV is Divinity inspired as you have said several times all ready. Though I do not wish to debate this, only because I want to stay on track about an old theory that has died out; I would be more than willing to send you some very good articles that talk about this subject
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen What do know about my training? Just because I don’t go around talking about my degrees and books like you, doesn’t mean that I am not trained or lack experience. I have dual degrees on both the secular side and theological side. I have a masters of divinity like you, and a ph.D. I have written over 15 books mostly since my time as a missionary to Thailand. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Although I am trained in biblical criticism,I have come to dislike the formal exercise of going back into the Hebrew to study the bible because of people like you that think they know more than the original translators.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping I don’t know anything about you or what you have accomplished not – all I have to go by is your scholarship shown here & wow, the way you laid out vs 2 for example – I just wouldn’t show that in any academic circles cuz they laugh you to scorn.
Look, this is getting way to offensive for you I can see & this is NOT my intentions – I just want to have mature discussions about some passages of Scripture & stick to academic resources as we go. But I’m not getting that treatment here like I would most anywhere else. Sad
Do you want to continue or on a non confrontational expositions or no? I would like to continue if possible
Varnel Watson
Robert Franzen I use several German lexicons that are batter but for the purpose of this OP when I rarely need it I use BDAG for Greek (Thayer when I teach it to my students) and BDB aka Brown for Hebrew
Even Strongs catches the Hithpael meaning of the verb:
to mass themselves again
– – – you can ponder upon this for a bit
But let’s take Brown who places the discussion on replenish on page 569ff if you’d like to review it. You would note Brown does NOT include Gen 1:28 as a reference there and you may ask yourself WHY?
NIV translators have answered this for YOU In order to avoid replenish they have gone with “subdue, bring into bondage” 🙂 referenced by Brown on p 1126
Now lets ask ourselves WHY the earth needed to be replenished or even subdued
EXCEPT if it was taken by Lucifer under his rule during his fall after which GOD created mankind to take it over BY replenishing and subduing it #there Gary Micheal Epping Rico Hero
Robert Franzen
Troy Day well I’m very glad to hear you have those study tools, they are good ones.
Now it seems we need to teach how to use them – for a specific use of a single word in its context. Not this pick & choose your favorite definition.
You are out in left field on this
Varnel Watson
You again sound like a child who is trying to belittle an adult. Let’s hope AGTS dont call your “degree” off for plagiarizing
Louise Cummings
I was trying to fix a word. It dumps out from my place. But he said Jesus wouldn’t come all the way to earth , to get His Bride because this was Satan’s territory. I thought it sounded logical. Someone gave some Scriptures the other day I didn’t know was in the Bible. Proving your point. But when I leave where I was. It’s hard to find it back. I can’t remember who it was.
Robert Franzen
The Bottom line of the Gen. 1:2 Darkness
now for the rest of the story. Because there was an absolute physical darkness that covered the earth, both from the physical absence of physical light and the literal veil of God! Both spiritual and physical things are happening here.
The Holy Spirit showed me the spiritual side of Gen. 1:2. Remember, the two Hebrew words for darkness are often seen together throughout the OT, (Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11, 5:22-23; II Sam. 22:10-12; I Kg. 8:12; Job 38:9; Ps. 97:2; Isa. 60:2; Jer. 13:16; Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15), and the TWOT says that the word hoshek in Gen. 1:2 also accompanied God’s appearance on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 14:20; Deut. 4:11; Deut. 5:23). Well, the author used hoshek in a congruent way in context of differentiating from light, and measuring time, with the evening (darkness) and the morning (daylight) cycles. The word was not used in a judgmental way at all in this context and furthermore, the idea that these words were used judgmentally was introduced many centuries later. This is sufficient evidence, proving the word by itself did not mean judgment occurred in Gen. 1:2. Remember, the context controls how the word is used. With the bold print above in mind, the reason for the darkness of Gen. 1:2 is the same reason that the top of Mount Sinai was covered in darkness in Deut. 4:11 and Deut. 5:22, when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. It was the same great darkness that came over Abraham in Gen. 15:12. It is the same darkness in Ex. 20:21, “And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.” It is the same reason it was dark around the cross; this darkness is the dark shield created around God Himself. This darkness simply indicates that God was on the scene! It was God moving over the waters in Gen. 1:2 (as the very next clause states). Furthermore, read Gen. 1:1-5 with no periods, because there were no periods in the original Hebrew text. It was one continuous thought, proving that no gap of time occurred. When the darkness came upon the earth, (God coming down upon the earth to finish it) the face of the waters moved and God said, “Let there be light” (a physical light) in verse three. It is a congruent description of the events of creation in systematic order, very simply stated.
We have learned what transpired in the supernatural realm; but the author of Genesis uses the word for the absence of physical light because the context is that of the origin of darkness, light, and everything else in our physical universe. When God comes down, He comes with a thick dark cloud around Himself that can be positive and/or negative; both blessing and judgment can come forth from Him. After all, mercy and judgment are two balancing aspects of His character. Thus, to say that this darkness represents only judgment is totally inaccurate and ignorant, especially in the Genesis narration of Creation! It is simply God appearing on the scene finishing what He started!
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping who was it that kept asking for my book here & I basically said forget the book, let’s just talk – but people kept asking. – make up y’all’s mind.
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen not hard. In verse 1, there surely was light as God created the heavens and the earth. After the judgement of satan and his angels, the first sentence of verse 2 describes the devastation of the earth, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Notice there is a period at the end of that sentence. The next sentence (And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters) describes the start of God cleaning up the mess in preparation for the recreation that begins in verse 3. What began with darkness, was changed to light as God descended upon the face of the waters in verse 2. In God there is no darkness AT ALL.
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Interesting. So you see God covered in a thick dark cloud (darkness) hovering over an unformed earth that is covered in water. His next move is to bring light dividing the light from darkness. So what was this light here dividing the light from darkness until day 4?
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen There is one big flaw in your discourse on verse two. You said, “just because it was created unfashioned and uninhabited it was still perfect in its stage… He made it a perfect place for His prize creation…. perfect for His people to inhabit.” I agree that the original creation described in verse one was made in perfection, with nothing needing to be added or changed. But the perfection of the heavens and earth were corrupted when Lucifer sinned. Verse 2 is a description of God’s judgment, whether you like the idea or not. Even though there was a new creation in the 7 days, God only described it as ‘good’ and ‘very good.’ It could not be described as perfect as Satan was still on the loose. In a new perfect world, Adam and Eve would have had the abilities to resist temptation and not fall into sin. That is why you can’t have a single sentence running from verse 1 thru 5 like you said. Verse 2 is linked to verse 1 to show the fall of God’s perfect creation. Neither of those verses can be linked to perfection in verse 3 and what follows. If you want to link verses 1 and 2 and show the real three prong context, then you will have to go to Rev. 21:1;4: “Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away..” It is here that we see all evil eliminated and thrown into the lake of fire, with perfection finally being restored. So, the context is Gen 1:1-2, REV 21:1-4.” Here we have God creating a perfect sinless world, its fall because of Satan, and its restoration to perfection with the elimination of Satan, all sin and evil. This identifies a major flaw in your nice little theory.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping Again Gary, I know what the theory teaches. I’m trying to get you to understand another view/interpretation that works perfectly.
Vs 1 & 2 & the whole chapter are tied together – tied to vs 1 original perfect creation. The Hebrew grammar flows with a story that does not allow a perverted twisted gap/fall story in the creation context – that fall story comes later in the drama.
How do we know this? Because of the “waw” conjunctive tying it all together.
Also the word “was” is misinterpreted by gappists.
The phrase “Without form & void” is not understood by gappists.
I can teach you another way to interpret this that is in total congruent and in harmony with the rest of Scripture. And does not violate any grammatical or hermeneutical principles like the gap theory most certainly does.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping the doctrine of Restoration is also key & gives clues to God’s original purpose & design – it will be restores back to His original purpose in the end.
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen You are wrong about the 7 day creation reflecting perfect. Maybe it is time for you to learn something new. You attack opponents first on their formal training, and then say they are aging. Age brings wisdom, something you hopefully are striving for. And last you turn to name calling using words like perverted etc. Time to open up and learn something.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping Yes, Gary, we both know what the gap theory teaches.
Let me reiterate; the purpose of these discussions are not so much to change your mind (although you’d be insane not to), the purpose is that you simply learn another view of interpretation of Genesis 1.
I ask that you lay aside everything perviously learned for a moments to learn another way (a better way).
I know the gap theory & can teach it better than most gappists. This is education, this is true learning. If you stop fighting & try to learn another view you’ll be better/smarter in the long run.
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero I don’t say that God covers Himself with darkness – Scripture says that very clearly – in over 12 passages.
The light is a physical created light
The darkness in vs 2 has a twofold condonation or in other words, there are two things going on: the absence of physical created light & God on the scene.
(Scripture was written by ancient near-easterners & they didn’t have a modern western worldview/mindset like we do today – it didn’t exist yet.
Therefore, we have to try to think like they thought – which is very holistic. Westerners think in terms of dichotomy – as in, “either or.”
Holistic thinking is more “both/and” more times than not.
The darkness is “both-and,” – an absence of physical created light & God behind His dark shield hovering over His earth to form it & fill it to His intended purpose.
Absolutely nothing out of order, no sin, no chaos as you understand it, just absolute perfection! Just The Master Creator designing His masterpiece:)
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen You “ask that you lay aside everything perviously learned for a moments to learn another way (a better way).” I have already done just that. Growing up as a good baptist boy, I followed the young earth position, because that is what the preacher taught, and the elders believed. As I began my theological studies, I read as many different positions on the bible as I possibly could. After my studies were finished, i found that the best way for me to continue my studies was to get a bible with no commentary and seek the Holy Spirit for guidance. And guess what, I did find what you call a ‘better way.’ My studies have resulted in a firm rejection of YEC beliefs and acceptance of an old earth position. So, I already know the ‘other view’ and rejected it, and have found no further reason to change back.
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen You said, that ‘God creates darkness.’ Is that like in your brain?
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen So what was this light dividing the light from darkness until day 4?
Rico Hero
Gary Micheal Epping Robert is thinking of Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero yes I added that verse (Isa. 45:7) because I know Gary takes the KJV on the surface as inspired & doesn’t bother to study the original meaning (or the KJ translators meaning).
I did not include this verse in my study (book) because that is actually not what it means. I want to see if Gary takes the bait.
But all the other passages listed are authentic – read & you’ll discover that God dwells behind thick gloomy clouds of darkness
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping you already learned a better way. I like that & fair enough – sad that you came to that conclusion but fair. If I had opportunity to talk face to face I would challenge that big time.
I would like to hear from you a rendering of the YEC view –
(& remember me saying; I could care less about the age of the earth, if its young or old doesn’t matter to me – only the Integrity of Scripture matters. The Integrity of science is also on the line as well unfortunately ).
I would also like to know when was the first time you heard of the gap theory & from who?
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping
Isaiah 45:7 KJVS
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero The dividing of light & darkness is the night-day cycles – earth rotations. Not until day 4 but still happening today.
The only thing that happened on day 4 was the creation of the natural light sources – sun, moon, stars, etc.
What constituted a day without the sun in existence until day 4, answer, earth rotations & God
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen God acting as the sun until day 4, it almost makes too much sense 🙂
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero no, no, you are confusing the Shekinah glory light of God with natural physical light. You’re stuck in Dichotomy thinking again.
God created a physical light – & He did so before He created the sources for that light – now that’s mind blowing.
There are some interesting scientific models of how this could have been done too.
Robert Franzen
Can somebody prove the gap theory Scripturally to me?
Can somebody show me when the theory has been taught in history & by whom please?
Look, I can give ya latitude if you believe in the rapture or don’t believe in the rapture. I can give latitude if ya believe in the eternal security or not; I can even tolerate if you don’t believe in speaking in tongues. But the gap theory that can be proven a joke over & over by real scholars has been done over & over. Only a few in a aging generation is still holding on to an old pet doctrine no matter what sound theology & exegesis says.
So let’s quit bickering philosophically and get back to exegesis of Scripture.
I believe thus far, I have proven my points with v 1 & the principle demonstrated with the word “replenish.”
The next word is “and.”
This simple word also proves no gap possible.
I also suggest to consult with some of today’s leading theologians & scholars too.
Varnel Watson
yes – you are free to avoid the issue now 🙂 as long you got beat on “replenish” 6 ways from Sunday
Gary Micheal Epping
It seems you have found a ‘gap’ in his thinking.
Robert Franzen
Troy Day for the second time: you gave a modern day definition from the Cambridge online dictionary- you did not give a definition from the 1500’s.
However, I just got word that we here are dealing with a family member in the hospital who probably isn’t going to make it through the day; so if you don’t hear from me for a bit this is why.
In the meantime; I can clear up the confusion you presented & present that;
& if you would Troy, present the definitions from the works you cited before (not commentaries & not web articles) academic resources only – on the word Replenish.
Thank you
Gary Micheal Epping
Happy birthday, Troy Day!
Varnel Watson
Thanks!
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen It is hard to prove to you, as you are still weaseling around the issue of when did Lucifer fall. That is a very critical question that Troy Day has asked you over and over. I never did hear a clear response from you.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping You never heard/read a clear response from me ? Really!? ?
Please go back & read them – you must have missed them or you just plain refuse to acknowledge it. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean I didn’t answer. I answered the question several times & not only answered it, more importantly I answered without violating any hermeneutical principles & worked with sheer Scripture Without any added man made theories used to help me.
Scripture in its purest form & presentation shows that the fall of the devil happened after the creation week & sometime before Adams fall. It happened after day 7 because Scripture Clearly shows the the garden created after man was, & Ezekiel 28 shows the “anointed cherub” in the garden before he fell. Thats just pure Scripture wheather you agree or not – this is an answer & a good one at that my friend.
Is that an answer ti when Satan fell without the gap theroy?
I didnt say you agree with it – but is that an answer Gary?
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen While we are at it, when was Lucifer created. Same time period as above or earlier? Simple answer will suffice.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping Lucifer wasn’t created; an anointed cherub was that fell. The timing of the creation of Angels the Bible is silent on this we should be too.
The only evidence is from Job indicating they were created before the earth was.
The thing to keep in mind is that there absolutely no evidence of a fall before the creation week – contrary to the fallacy teachings of the gap theory introduced in the early 1800’s
Varnel Watson
Lucifer wasn’t created;? DO WHAT? #hello
Gary Micheal Epping
Troy Day This keeps getting stranger and stranger. Do YEC folks think that Lucifer has always been around like the primordial waters? Had not heard that before.
Varnel Watson
hold on NOW – I asked long time ago IF this is going to turn to the 70 sons of God by Heiser heresy with non Biblical proof we will have to put a stop on it right the way The Bible explicitly states
With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you.
created – pretty plainly says Lucifer was created
Gary Micheal Epping
Troy Day What about this other anointed cherub that fell according to Robert? Who was he? Does this mean Lucifer is still in heaven without sin?
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen You say the ‘devil’ fell after the 7 days. Is that the transformed Lucifer that sinned or another anointed cherub? This would mean that sin entered mankind through Satan rather than Adam, which clearly violates scripture.
Varnel Watson
Look here Gary lucifer was not created until the devil fell after 7 days 6 ways from Sunday And there you have it ALL explained with no gap in the theory 🙂
Gary Micheal Epping
Troy Day I think Robert conveniently says the angels were created before the earth to avoid having to explain why the genesis account does not speak of it along with the rest of creation during the 7 days. He thinks he is off the hook. BUT, wouldn’t it also be noticed and written about in Genesis or other historical accounts, if Satan and millions of angels came roaring through the atmosphere as they were thrown out of heaven. That would been quite a light show with many people seeing it and certainly being newsworthy enough to be recorded somewhere in written or oral history. Yet, there is nothing in that time period to recognize this. So, I think Robert got half of it right, the creation of the angels before the earth. The other half he got wrong, as the fall also was before the creation of the earth also.
Gary Micheal Epping
On a serious note, Robert Franzen has a family member that is in the hospital and he said the outlook was not very good. He could use some prayer.
Louise Cummings
Gary Micheal Epping I will Pray got the need.
Jon Ruthven
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (Gen 1:22 KJV)
Robert Franzen
Jon Ruthven Yes Jon, this why all the newer versions do not use the old English word but a better communicating modern word – simply “fill.”
This is obvious; but some here won’t even concede to that fact:
However, the debate is why would the KJ translators use that scholarly word?
A little research shows that the word simply meant “fill” in the time of the KJ translation; it was just a fancy scholarly poetic way of saying “fill.”
Rico Hero
Jon Ruthven Good Point. What is your take on other places the word “replenish” is used? This YEC website accepts a refill in the 6 of 7 places the word is used. From the ICR webpage Re Replenish the earth snip, Admittedly, “replenish” is a permissible translation of the Hebrew, mâlê. Both “fill” and “refill” are legitimate translations since the translators had a choice to make in translating God’s mandate as given to Adam.
As a matter-of-fact, in the King James Old Testament, mâlê was translated “replenish” or “replenished” only seven times. In six of these instances, “replenish” was indeed a more appropriate rendering than “fill.” The most obvious is at Genesis 9:1, in which God told Noah to “replenish the earth” after the Flood.
Lyndon Conn
Does this question stem from questions concerning the Gap theory. So the question then would be, “does it mean to refill something that was previously filled? Or does it simply mean to fill (for the first time)?”
Arguments can be made from both sides. If it means to fill only, the the KJV and others use the wrong English word in their translations. But the fact still remains that it can mean “to fill”, and still be a second time of filling. But it cannot mean “to refill” and refer to a first time of filling. So the odds are slightly better for a refilling of the earth – while definitely not eliminating the possibility of a first time filling. But the argument can’t be proven either way based in a single scripture.
The GAO theory is just that – a theory! It is a possibility that should be considered, but not dogmatically asserted. The reality is, it can calm the evolutionist who insist on an old earth, while not compromising the creation account. Although science has error when it come to the age of things like the earth, it also gives some facts. And I have found that by laying out this “possibility” of a Gap, it can keep them from seeing us as totally ignorant and open a door to be heard. The Gap theory does not limit the earth to 6000 years, which they cannot see or accept as possible. By using it as a possibly it can open their minds to the creation and everything we know that followed it in the Bible. Arguing against it isn’t proving anything or helping anyone.
People seem to think that they have to make a stand on one possibility they can claim as truth as they totally reject anything else. That might hold true with some things – such as Jesus being the only way of salvation. But we we not at the creation or before that time; and the Bible doesn’t offer us enough information to know what all happened and when. It is okay to say “I don’t know”! It is okay to not “know it all”! And it is okay to think something is possible that goes against the majority. Don’t pretend to have it all figured out. Because I can promise you that you don’t! And neither do I. I think we will all be amazed when we get to heaven to discover all that God did before the creation and throughout time in the universe and wherever He may have been involved. The Gap theory makes sense logically, even though it cannot be proven scripturally. It doesn’t change that God created all things.
Robert Franzen
Lyndon Conn just read your post & like it very much.
Yes, the word “replenish” is concerning the gap theory debate. In short, the Hebrew word simply means “fill.”
The way a word is used is controlled by its context. In Gen. 1:28 it would be filling in an original (first time) sense, as you said.
Petty simple.
The confusion comes in from the English word. Because today the meaning of replenish is “re-fill.” However, we know words can evolve over time & back in 1611 when the KJV was written the prefix “re” meant “complete,” as in relax. In other words it simply meant “fill” to the KJ translators. And they choose to use that word that was loosing its meaning to keep a poetic scholarly word around.
I also agree with your synopsis about the age of the earth/universe issue. I don’t think it’s wise to make it a major issue & be dogmatic on the subject. It isolates if we do this. I am concerned about the Integrity of Scripture & also the Integrity of science. Be true to the principles of interpretation for both – is the way I feel.
As I spent hundreds of hours researching scientific evidences from young earth & old earth, I feel the young earth has more weight & agreement but that shouldn’t cause me to fight ALL old earth positions because that would be foolish. I do believe there are a couple of old earth models that work without violating Scripture. The gap theory was an attempt to harmonize theology with the overwhelming popularity of science that was growing at the start of the enlightenment. Yet, as scholars have examined it closely it violates way too many portions of Scripture to be taken seriously, & so since the 70’s it has been dying a slow death. In another decade or two, or a generation, it will be totally gone.
Varnel Watson
Gary Micheal Epping even if we drop replenish which I’ve already said is not that important to Gap Theory Robert Franzen still has to explain WHY the earth was created shapeless and void and needed to be filled to start with Isara Mo Rico Hero
Robert Franzen
Troy Day oh we getting to that Troy, as I said many times before here, we needed to establish this simple yet vital interpretation principle.
That we cannot use a modern English dictionary to look up ancient Hebrew words.
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Re : what was this light dividing the light from darkness until day 4?
Robert , you said “God created a physical light – & He did so before He created the sources for that light – now that’s mind blowing.
There are some interesting scientific models of how this could have been done too.”
Hello Robert,
Mind blowing indeed.
I may have missed such a model in science class. Do you have a link?
Gary Micheal Epping
If not from God himself or the sun or stars, then maybe from some kind of cosmic flashlight. But, I don’t remember reading anything about something like this. But, I bet Robe has an explanation.
Varnel Watson
ch14 of his book may be all about that as well
Rico Hero
Gary Micheal Epping Cosmic flashlight ? I was under the impression that all Young Earthers believed that God is the light dividing the light from darkness until day 4. They quote Rev 21:23 as proof : 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.” One Young Earther ( this group ) he once stated that Angels had special eyes that can see in the dark universe until day 4. I cant wait to here Robs explanation of a temporary light
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero good question Rico & admittedly difficult to answer because we journey off into hypothesis’ rather than establishing solid interpretation principles. I will attempt to describe one such model, but my purpose here is to stay on track & go thru Scripture with hermeneutical principles – & by doing so eliminates a lot of hog wash that would otherwise waste our time & energies on something we find out later in life was never true.
So after this, I’m getting back focused on our discussion & not veering off into left field.
Summarizing this:
Scientists have discovered that when they bombard a vessel of some sort full of water, let’s say a large jar of water. When they bombard the water with sound waves, mega sound waves, they observed air bubbles forming in the water & upon busting they gave off a flash of light & energy. This is on a micro scale – now take it to a mega scale – scientists know that the universe is made with lots of water, which the Bible describes as well. Thus, if God has this enormous mass & water & used His massive voice that the Bible describes in the Psalms can move the oceans, His massive voice saying “let there be light” ie sound waves – would have caused the same scientific effect shooting light off throughout.
Like I said it works scientifically & in a literal sense but a hypothesis
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen Another hypothesis has a large horde of giant lightning bugs engulfing the planet. Their generation of light is very interesting too.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping funny, I could throw a few of them out there – like the spaghetti monster lol
but the one I presented is from scientists (not me) it’s scientific.
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Good one Robert, but it would not work.Earth’s oceans would also light up making it impossible to divide this light from darkness as the earth rotates.
Isara Mo
Robert Franzen The Bible says God is light….
Am.just trying to think aloud..was the light which God spoke into existence different from the pre existence light of his being?
To Him who is everlasting light there is no space time… and the gap we see is possibly only in our fickle imaginations..
If one statement in Genesis 1:1 describes the whole universe seen and unseen(In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth) I don’t see us work out successfully the jigsaw puzzle of the gap…theory.
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero
You said:
“Robert Franzen Good one Robert, but it would not work.Earth’s oceans would also light up making it impossible to divide this light from darkness as the earth rotates.”
The oceans weren’t created yet – as we know them.
Isara Mo
Robert Franzen
Were the oceans ” created” ?…
The scripture don’t say so…
Robert Franzen
Isara Mo The Hebrew text makes it impossible for a gap of time in the Creation account. No other support for it either anywhere in Scripture or any other ancient texts.
There is as you know the light of God because He is light; but we also observe a physical natural light & I personally believe this is what Gen 1 is referring to – the origin of all physical things we humans see & experience.
Hope that helps
Isara Mo
Robert Franzen It sure helps…
What is your comment on.the verse that says God laid the foundation of earth on water?
The first utterance from God regarding creation is “Let there be light) and not ” let there be water…”
I would think that light is the foundation upon which the whole creation is built and not water..
Do you agree
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Just deep waters for the Spirit to hover over before they were gathered on day 3 so dry land will appear.
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Re: Hebrew text makes it impossible for a gap of time in the creation account.
You mean the Hebrew text as interpreted by the 70 Hellenistic Jews ?
Robert Franzen
Back to the question at hand:
I have established that when you go to your quality study tools, we all find that the Hebrew word for replenish means to fill.
In Every other study, that satisfies us & we all move on.
However, the English throws us a curve ball because the meaning of words sometimes change over time.
We have gone over that finding dictionary works hundreds of years ago shows a time that replenish simply meant “fill.” Period!
Troy Day immediately goes scrambling to research this – which I commend him for – we all should do that.
comes back with some interesting finds. That the Oxford English Dictionary was officially created (named actually) until something like 1884, well after the KJV. However, he cut off his research to quick. The project started long before this collecting old English words dating back as far as 1150ad. So the dictionaries in use at the time of 1611 had the word replenish around meaning (from the French) to fill.
Then Troy Day makes the same mistake as the original mistake I’m trying to correct. He finds the Cambridge Dictionary & gives us the same “MODREN definition of the word Replenish.
(I’m still requesting some information of research cited in materials I’ve studied to get more details & will be happy to share them here if you’d like).
Bottom line has never changed – in Gen. 1:28 the word replenish means “fill.”
& the KJ translators were correct in doing so – but if they were alive today, they would use the word “fill.”
Have you ever read some of the original KJ translators notes?
Fascinating and very revealing as to what they believed about their own work. I encourage to research that.
Blessings
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen I think you mean that the Hebrew word Maw-lay– and in all its forms, never means refill. Yet the context of this word as replenish in the 7 places does show that it is a re-filling. The most obvious is at Genesis 9:1, in which God told Noah to “replenish the earth” after the Flood. How do you explain that?
Robert Franzen
Rico Hero that’s right Rico, & there is good reason for that which I keep stressing the extreme importance of over & over – yet I thinks some are more concerned about proving me wrong that they/(you maybe?) miss the point –
The reason why Rico is 1) a word is controlled by its context. Words are virtually meaningless without context.
2) is technical – you’d have to know the Hebrew language really well to notice the spelling marks on the word.
Varnel Watson
Not true Already showed 2 superb Hebrew sources which along the Cambridge dictionary used by the KJV translators back the true meaning of replenish I have not seen the opposite being “established” except of course using Strongs which is not really a scholarly resource per se
Robert Franzen
Troy Day please provide your resource that says the KJ translators used the Cambridge dictionary.
& your Hebrew works: (& please pay attention to how male is used in the Gen 1:28 context).
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Is it not obvious? Even Yec site admits that 6 of the 7 places replenish is used means refill. Therefore, we are left with two options. 1) KJV translators had the cambridge dictionary 2) They were divinely inspired that replanish means refill
Varnel Watson
it says what it says
Robert Franzen
Troy Day what does that mean? Provide the cite.
Cuz you are missing some vital information
Varnel Watson
not only I am not missing it BUT I caught your many errors – adding the conjunction cannot be explained with Gap Theory You already tried and could not #sorry
Robert Franzen
Troy Day you’re mistaken again Troy, let me provide the chapter & you’ll see that my Analysis is consistent with the many scholarly works out there.
PLUS, you gave false information about the definition of “replenish” as I pointed out time & again.
You understand replenish as today’s English definition & totally ignored the original Hebrew word – a common fallacy & you made it.
Varnel Watson
you missed several Hebrew words in your “translation” – the rest you copy pasted from someone else
Robert Franzen
Troy Day you’re loving this, jumping all over that & ignoring some verifiable facts I’ve brought out.
Ok, since you’re being so mature about this (not) I wasn’t going to delete that post but I will & repost it with all my same writings.
If you want to debate expository, please one has to listen to what the other says – not make up things
Robert Franzen
Troy Day plus you still refuse to acknowledge the fact of not using modern dictionaries to define ancient Hebrew words
– I can admit when I make a mistake, why can’t you?
Varnel Watson
I am just fining too many gaps in your book than having the time to deal with – probably for the better BUT one things becomes clear neither you nor your book can prove OP without Gap Theory – oh well Gary Micheal Epping already told you that
Robert Franzen
I have proven a correct translation of verse 1 – got virtually no disagreement from any of you guys.
Next, I have shown a common western mistake made, which all of you guys were guilty of – that one simply cannot use a modern English definition for an ancient Hebrew word. Upon examination of this, we found that the word replenish simply means “fill” at the time the KJV was translated.
This embarrassed you guys I suppose & now are trying to bail again & write me off & ignore it all.
Well I never said you’d believe it, because I understand human nature & when a man is entrenched in a pet doctrine, he ant moving unless he has a teachable spirit.
We didn’t get very far & all that I have presented thus far is verifiable &
Gary Micheal Epping
The verse has already been translated into the english bible; USE IT! I think it is time to throw the greek over your back like the Lord did sin and forget about it
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping no serious Christian throws out the original languages – that’s stupidity
Robert Franzen
Ha, you’re to predictable, sad. I got the same treatment from Evolutionists/atheists, I surely didn’t expect this kind of immaturity here:(
Ok, point out the first “gap” you’ve found please
Varnel Watson
1) the missing of the obvious hebrew words in your fake translation
2) missing obvious quotes and their sources
3) copying from other peoples books
4) having not even read FF Bruce for your self
5) having basic lack of understanding what Gap theory really is
6) calling people names when your arguments dont stick
7) still having posted your book so we can actually see what your theory is
The list goes on BUT why do I get a feeling I already told you all this 3-4 times already
Robert Franzen
Troy Day 1) not exactly true; my whole chapteris correct. You refuse to talk about that “conjunction .”
2) I have cited every resource I’ve used – in the book
3) again, anything I’ve ever used I cited in all my works.
4) I have a couple/few of FF Bruce’s books & have read them
5) I have demonstrated I know that the theory extremely well. In fact, deminstraghted i know better than most here. – you have another straw man here
6) I’ve only referred to you as immature & very much so – actually, it’s low emotional intelligence.
7) I not opposed to sharing my book – y’all have access to it anyway so another strawman argument. But the reason I’m not is because I want to have a dialogue & go thru this with you to prove there are indeed other ways to answer your questions without the gap theory.
& nothing you pointed out above addressed any of my exposition of Scripture (except maybe the 1st one), leading me to observe that you keep skirting the issues at hand. You won’t stick with the exegesis,
Robert Franzen
Troy Day In other words – nothing you said address, address the Scriptural exposition & exegesis – just complaints. Typical when losing a debate.
Robert Franzen
& not to mention evidence that the gap theory is a recent invention – first heard of in 1814. No evidence to the contrary.
James Hail
Gentlemen, I have taken time to read your bantering back and forth. I must go back to what I was first taught regarding the interpretation of Scripture to ask a simple question. Are we to use Scripture to interpret Scripture? If so, then it seems logical to me that the many scholars involved in the KJV translation would have been consistent in word usage based on their understanding at the time.
Robert Franzen
James Hail (sorry about all the bantering, ive never stooped so low:(
major principle tho! – Scripture interrupts Scripture
Gary Micheal Epping
James Hail I like your argument, but have never seen the worth of arguing about it. The earth did get filled or refilled.
James Hail
Gary Micheal Epping I agree. Arguing solves nothing. I was merely stating my conclusion from the previous remarks. I do not see where I must accept or deny any “theory” fr salvation or discipleship.
Robert Franzen
Yes, the different creation models have always been around & they are NOT a salvation issue.
I will say this though, what one believes about origins has eternal ramifications – for example (the really black & whites are obvious), if one believes in Darwinian atheistic evolution & no creation – thus no God – eternal ramifications.
We all here on the other hand don’t have that problem thank God.
Yet fine tuning our Gospel message really does come back to Genesis. The book of Genesis is the seedbed of all Christian doctrine.
For example: I personally believe if Adam & Eve we’re only figurative & not real, & no real shedding of blood to cover them/their sin, etc. on what basis did Jesus shed His blood? Why is there marriage, why do we wear clothes, why do we need a literal redemption – it’s all founded in Genesis.
While I totally agree that it’s not a salvation issue, our view of Genesis can strengthen or weaken our Gospel message.
(Albeit, the gap theory is designed to be as literal as possible, so this hardly applies to the gap theory – except the death before sin issue).
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen I really do like your youthful vigor, but you really need to reconsider and reassess your position, as you have went down the wrong rabbit hole.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping Touché Mr. Gary,
Care to give an answer to when the gap theory started?
Care to admit that you believed the word replenish meant “re-fill” because of our modern understanding of the English. And never bothered to look up the Hebrew word.
Care to speak to the word “and” in Gen. 1:2 – which haven’t heard from you yet on this
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping & we haven’t even gotten to the heavy things that demolish the gap theory totally yet:)
Gary Micheal Epping
I could care less about the word and or replenish as they have little to do with the inspired english translation. It’s time to dump the greek off into the abyss. And get to verse 2.
Gary Micheal Epping
I think you need to rethink what you are trying to do. You want to try and change the inspired word of God in english, by going back to the greek and reinterpreting. This is a disaster for the common man that needs to know his bible is the word of God. This is serious Robert. Not trying to argue, but what you do can destroy the faith of many people that think their bible is the preserved Word of God. May God bless and lead you.
Gary Micheal Epping
Robert Franzen The so called gap began when the ink hit the paper as Moses recorded it.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping provide evidence.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping
You said:
“You want to try and change the inspired word of God in english, by going back to the greek and reinterpreting. This is a disaster for the common man that needs to know his bible is the word of God. This is serious Robert. Not trying to argue, but what you do can destroy the faith of many people that think their bible is the preserved Word of God. May God bless and lead you.”
Thank you for this & for your sincerity. I absolutely agree that this would be devastating to one’s faith if someone were to do this. However, please hear me carefully, this is not what I’m doing. I am not suggesting to change anything!!! I am only teaching people the original intent & meaning of the author. I am only defining what the word means – not changing it. Open your Strongs Concordance & it defines the word used. It’s that simple.
The KJ got it RIGHT but we need to know what the word meant to THEM, not us.
1st lesson they teach you in hermeneutics is FIRST find what it meant to them BACK THEN, then bridge the gap with the principles into modern times.
So all I’m doing is defining the original meaning – (of the Hebrew not Greek as you said in your post).
Does this make sense to you?
Varnel Watson
Gary Micheal Epping Sure, we can run the other 2-3 points this week as well but whats the point? When 7-8 cannot be proven without Gap Theory what are the odds the rest 2-3 could be?
Rico Hero
The responses are interesting! Post
Varnel Watson
OK – just dont wanna listen to Bob’s repetitions
Rico Hero
I think the meaning of replenish can be proven by 1) context 2) Contemporary use of the word
1) the context of the 7 places the word replenish is used in the KJV shows that it means refill.
2) The 1599 Geneva Bible used replenish in 5 of the 7 places used by KJV that shows that it means refill
From the 1599 GNV:
Gen. 9:1 And God [a]blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Bring forth fruit, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Isa 23:2 Be still, ye that dwell in the isles: the merchants of Sidon, and such as pass over the sea, have [a]replenished thee.
Jer.31:25 For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.
Eze. 26:2 Son of man, because that Tyre hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, the [a]gate of the people is broken: it is turned unto me: for seeing she is desolate, I shall be [b]replenished,
Eze. 27:25 The ships of Tarshish [a]were thy chief in thy merchandise, and thou wast replenished and made very glorious in the midst of the sea.
Varnel Watson
Tim Dalton has shown much reason and logic in recent discussions Those verses posted above are solid Listen, folks, you just cant argue with the Bible when it plainly says
and the earth became shapeless and void
Gary Micheal Epping no hebrew lingo needed
Robert Franzen
Troy Day we’ll get to the word “was” next.
But I do want to point one thing out: you changed the word “was” to the word “became.”
Why do you do that when you guys jump like mad men at me for saying “replenish” simply means “fill?”
Varnel Watson
from watching you in the past 2-3 weeks I strongly doubt you will get to anything next – more or less
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen Re: That one cannot used a modern English dictionary to look up ancient Hebrew words. Yes, Robert. We all agree. No one disagreed, Gary said it so elegantly–did not give a rats behind that replenish means “to fill” 🙂 . My point regarding replenish is that it can mean to refill based on the context , not that it originally meant “to fill”. The mechanical translation? defines it: To occupy to the full capacity in v28
Varnel Watson
Look how plain and simple the 1611 KJV conveys the original Hebrew Robert There is no need to start 5 parallel topics on the same subject just to flood the group. Pls post your findings under the appropriate topic This is the one for REPLENISH
And check this out – isnt this a great platform that challenged you to do some actual scholarly research and copy paste from real PhD sources instead – what else can you a person interested in theology ask for except to use it gracefully and with respect of others?
Robert Franzen
There was no Cambridge Dictionary printed in 1584, you can view the Cambridge Press timeline at the link below.
https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/timeline/
In that link above, they specifically mention that in 1877 they (The Cambridge Press) declines what was to become the Oxford English Dictionary.
It was consequently decided that Oxford would print their own dictionary, which they first did as a complete volume in 1884. [and started years earlier and included Old English words as far back as 1150AD].
There was a Latin dictionary published in 1587, mentioned in the following link:
https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/ten-great-cambridge-authors/
At the bottom of the text below, I have a link from a book detailing the archives of the first 5 years of the Cambridge Press’s operation under publisher/printer Thomas Thomas. The only two books which could be considered dictionaries are the two Latin Grammar and dictionary books (taken from page 361) below:
Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society
Vol. 4, No. 5 (1968), pp. 339-362 (27 pages)
Published by: Cambridge Bibliographical Society
So in other words, there was no Oxford (or Cambridge) Dictionary of English from which the KJV translators borrowed/relied upon. You can view what English dictionaries were available at the time of the 1611 KJV (not many) at this link: https://public.oed.com/blog/the-first-dictionaries-of-english/
The people who are claiming that “replenish” means “refill” are not being truthful and are distorting history to try to prove their point.
You can also look for the word “replenish” in some of those early dictionaries:
http://downloads.it.ox.ac.uk/ota-public/tcp/Texts-HTML/free/A21/A21313.html 1538 version- replenish not there
https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#r 1604 English dictionary: Replenish means “fill”
Bottom line is – the Hebrew word male (maw-lay) means “fill” not refill.
Robert Franzen
Troy Day I’m looking for my posts that aren’t here anymore – you’re the administrator, so you probably can delete them.
You’re deleting my posts that can absolutely prove you wrong (if one chooses to seriously & objectivity listen).
You’re scamming me & the people on here, that’s a disservice & dishonest!
Robert Franzen
So where did we leave off? Am I understanding this correct – that you guys Troy Day & Gary Micheal Epping
believe the word replenish to mean re-fill still?
Varnel Watson
already said we do NOT need replenish for Gap Theory – I leave the rest to you on this one
Varnel Watson
Gary Micheal Epping check this out with Rico Hero
So did NOAH have to RE-plenish the earth after the 2nd flood?
hint – YES
why then Adam and Even should have not had to replenish after the 1st flood it ONLY makes sense
It also makes sense that Robert was Pete Fiske reborn
Varnel Watson
Pete Fiske we GOT about 40 Noah questions for you Where have you been and HOW do you explain Gen 1 28 with NO GAP theory? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/?s=gap
Madison Willoughby
to fill, be full of
Billy Detzel
If you’re reading the KJV it simply means to fill. Not fill again.
Dan Fitzgerald
I’m sorry Billy Detzel, the word God spoke with Adam and Eve as to replenish the Earth, is the same word that God use speaking to Noah when he told him after the flood to replenish the Earth. Now I know everybody has the idea that they can attempt to change it and put their own explanation to what replenish means, but when God speaks it that’s what it is no matter how much people want to change it, so that it agrees with their opinion instead of what God Said…!
Varnel Watson
the word God spoke with Adam and Eve as to replenish the Earth is RIGHT
Varnel Watson
can some one PLS tell me RichardAnna Boyce
Jacob O'Neill
It means it’s time to throw away the king James, and get a better translation
Stuart Chase
Back in 1611 when the KJV was first translated, “replenish” meant to fill. So “replenish” the earth means to fill the earth.
Lawrence Apitz
it means to fill the earth not replenish. or we have given room to the gap theory.
Michael Swengel
וּמִלְא֥וּ = “fill / to fill”
Justin McClain
I remember getting hung up on that when I was a staunch KJV guy. It’s great for poetry, but I suggest a healthy mix of translation cross referencing and a concordance and possibly a lexicon.
Jam Pineda
interesting
RichardAnna Boyce
fill up empty pentecostal churches with free grace believers 🙂
Christine Laukkanen
Old English. Means to fill. Today, it’s meaning means fill again, but old English means just ‘to fill’.
Just like prevent in old English means to go before.
Today it means to hinder.
Varnel Watson
Replenish is correct, if you can see the context of the chapter (earth destroyed in Gen 1:2) and the Bible (the life before Adam that was destroyed in Jeremiah). Both the King James and American Standard, they see it, Jeremiah 4:23-26 American Standard Version (ASV)
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills [a]moved to and fro. 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 26 I beheld, and, lo, [b]the fruitful field was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of Jehovah, and before his fierce anger.I. Think that is where there was a world before this one. Because it says to replenish, or repopulate what is empty , that was there before. That does sound logical. Could it mean to keep filled up as the first goes down. Like you keep planting beans, to have green beans to eat every year. But God didn’t make a new world every year. But he put man here to replenish what was liking every year. Even children. Or food. We can’t make people , like God did. So we replenish more by having more children. We break up the ground to plant more beans over and over again. So could it mean just keep putting back what has gone down. Just a thought.
Carl A Bohn
Do not overthink the word “Replenish.” It is very simple.
“Adam, when you pick an aple to eaat, before to plant the seeds in the ground so that more apple trees grow. Or, when you harvest grain take the prime harvest using it to plant the next seasons crop.
Replenishment was a re-creative action. Holy Spirit hover over the waters, seeding it with all the provision all living would ever need. Replenishment was never meant to catch up but to cast forward.
When it is time to replenish the fuel in your car, you do not plant “gasoline” seed to get more gas, you go to the gas station where the provision is already in place. The replenishment of the Bible is that you pay (plant seed) money to have the oil people produce more gasoline. Wise management of the oil fields have shown that if the oil fields are properly attended to, the algae that produces petroleum will replenish what has been harvested.
Anonymous
To fill.
It does not mean to “refill.”
Don’t be confused by the “re” in the English translation.
male or mala: to be full, to fill
God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and FILL the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that creeps on the earth.” LSB
Anonymous
Replenish means that we can say “to fulfill” the earth on His blessings fully.
Anonymous
Now as to the Hebrew word itself: it is male’, the simple verb ‘fill’. (Strong’s concordance No. 4390.) In its various forms it occurs 306 times in the Old Testament. Only seven times does the KJV translate it as ‘replenish’, but 195 times ‘fill’, ‘filled’ or ‘full’.
Replenish is correct, if you can see the context of the chapter (earth destroyed in Gen 1:2) and the Bible (the life before Adam that was destroyed in Jeremiah). Both the King James and American Standard, they see it, Jeremiah 4:23-26 American Standard Version (ASV)
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills [a]moved to and fro. 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 26 I beheld, and, lo, [b]the fruitful field was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of Jehovah, and before his fierce anger.
Jevan Little The American Standard also uses replenish in Genesis 1:28 and in Gen 9:1. Do you think it is a bad translation in Gen 9:1?
I have the actual 1611 quote of the list of definitions of the word Replenish – that I didn’t post here but the point was/is the principle – we MUST get our biblical definitions & understanding from the original language & time it was written.
The Strongs is not going to cut it – one has to go deeper to find the right definition for the particular context.
Remember, there are 7 nuance in Hebrew & so one word can have 7 twists to it according to the context.
Context always controls the meaning of words!
Oxford dictionary website regarding the word replenish: snip, Origin
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘supply abundantly’): from Old French repleniss-, lengthened stem of replenir, from re- ‘again’ (also expressing intensive force) + plenir ‘fill’ (from Latin plenus ‘full’).end snip.
This view of the word “Replenish.” comes from a very specific article on the Genesis creationism website that purposed to advance its scientific humanistic creationism theory by putting down Gap Theory {somehow} I’ve already shown the words is not needed to Gap Theory though it complements it as well as the whole Bible. Some elezabethian enlglish scholars have actually proven that
replanish means to replant
and it indeed refers to the commandment God gave to Adam to work the land
as well as what Able did in regard to Cain’s grain sacrifice
This meaning actually fits the Genesis creation story very nicely and there is no need to exponentiate on what someone said that someonelse wrote what some fictional book may have used the words for We should stick to the BIBLE and the biblical meaning of the word especially in regard to the tohu-va-bohu state of the earth that is without question I am surprised Pete Fiske has not jumped on this one yet as it helps his theory at this state of the current discussion