GAP Theory

The Hebrew translated "In the beginning" is a declaration of the original creative act of God, by which the universe was called into being. As the universe consists of space, time, and matter/energy yet is a UNIverse (Three in One!) it is true that time must have been created along with the rest of the space/time continuum.

However the verse is not merely a heading but a declaration of that first creative act. Verse two, which is a circumstantial clause, sets the stage, so to speak, for the following account of the course of the creation and commences with "waw" (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact of original creation expressed in verse 1, as the primary foundation upon which all the rest is built. בְּרשִׁיח (in the beginning) is an absolute. It stands alone.

The following circumstantial clause of verse two cannot be subordinate by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created ..., the earth was,” etc., which is opposed to the grammar.

The waw, prefixing the noun translated "earth" (Hebrew eretz = w-eretz) makes the word a disjunctive indicating no logical or chronological connection between verse one and verse two. Therefore it is mere, unsupported, speculation to try to insert time between verse one and verse two, as the gap theory tries to do.

I am sorry this answer to going so long, but Hebrew grammar is quite complex but is of vital importance in understanding the Creation narrative.

I don't think so.

I agree. The longer periods of time were delineated by the sun, moon, and stars, not created until verse 14, but the dividing of the light/dark created what the bible is calling a "day" so we have some indication that time, at least at the day/night level was already being recognized. The hermeneutical principle of "shareability" would indicate that two guys looking over Moses' shoulder as he penned the words would have the same understanding of the meaning of "day" as Moses, and other Jews living in the 15th century BC. A "day" to them was one light - dark cycle comprised of roughly 24 hours, and there is no reason to understand the word to mean anything else.

And even though the sun did not yet exist, as the earth turned on its axis, it would still exhibit a sidereal day. A sidereal day is simply the time it takes a point on the earth to rotate on its axis from one point in space, around a 360 degree circle, and back to that single point in space, marking out the roughly 24 hours of the day.

Well, the sidereal day, as explained about, would account for the length of the day prior to the creation of the sun. But the light was already created so, as God says he divided the light from the darkness it is legitimate to understand that the created light was gathered into a single spot in the cosmos and the day was reckoned using that point source.

I always get this mental picture of God, having created the light, had to keep grabing it and puting it back where it belonged because, as we know, light is fast and will stream away quickly if left unattended. So my mental image is of God grabing the light and puting it in a giant mason jar, screwing on the lid, and saying, "There! That will keep you where you belong." So God created the sun to be the light bearer of His created light. (But the light bearer was probably not a giant mason jar.)

And the use of the word "day" prior to the 4th day would also indicate to me that such a time existed, and the law of shareability would indicate the Jews of Moses' day understood the word to mean the same as it means to us today.

Sorry for the length of this answer. Just write it off to an old seminary professor with too much time on his hands during his retirement.

 

From 1985 until 2010 at San Diego Baptist Seminary.

And in the 1990s I also taught at Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College in San Dimas, California.

 

I was born in north suburban LA (Altadena), just about 10 minutes from the PCBBC campus and almost next door to WCG's headquarters/college in Pasadena.

In 2012 I retired (forcibly, by my doctor who told me to either retire or buy a casket) and my wife and I moved to the far, far, south of Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley just a stone's throw west of the Gulf of Mexico and a shorter stones throw from the Mexican border.

I am familiar with Armstrongism, but understand that it is now claiming to be mainstream evangelical. Other than that I haven't really kept up. I did know that Garner Ted had started a splinter church in Tyler Texas but don't think it ever went anywhere. I heard that he had died about 10 years ago.