{"id":18273,"date":"2019-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-09-08T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/angelology-010-satanology-06\/"},"modified":"2019-09-08T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-09-08T05:00:00","slug":"angelology-010-satanology-06","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/angelology-010-satanology-06\/","title":{"rendered":"Angelology 010 (Satanology 06)"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[12],"series_event":[499],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-18273","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-genesis","series_event-angelology","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Angelology 010 (Satanology 06)","sermon_date":"20190908","sermon_month":"9","sermon_year":"2019","sermon_notes":7029,"sermon_slides":7030,"sermon_mp3":7034,"sermon_id":"9819135505316","series_or_event":499,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":12,"chapter_and_verse":"1:1-3","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nAngelology 10 (Satanology 6)\n\nGenesis 1:1-3\n\n9-8-2019\n\nFather, I just thank You for this morning, thank You for Your Word, Your Spirit, Your church.\u00a0 Thank you that You have revealed information to us, not just about the present but about the beginning and about the end.\u00a0 And we get the opportunity to take a look at the beginning in Sunday School today and we get the opportunity to take a look at the end in the main service that follows.\u00a0 So I just ask that You\u2019ll be with us during our time of study and help us to be good stewards of what You have revealed.\u00a0 We ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name and God\u2019s people said\u2026. Amen.\n\nYou might want to open\u00a0 your Bible to the Book of Genesis, chapter 1 and verses 1-3.\u00a0 And we\u2019re continuing our study on Satanology, actually it\u2019s really not a study on Satanology, it\u2019s a study on angelology.\u00a0 But we\u2019ve sort of finished the good angels and so now we\u2019ve been talking about the bad angel that fell, Satan.\u00a0 And so here\u2019s sort of the subjects that we\u2019ve looked at under Satanology.\u00a0 We\u2019ve looked at his existence, his personhood, his names and his titles, and we have been looking also at his original state and first sin.\u00a0 And we saw really there are two Scriptures that help us with that\u2014Ezekiel 28:12-17 and Isaiah 14:12-15.\n\nSo part of that discussion, if you want it to be comprehensive, would also include the time of Satan\u2019s fall, kind of a somewhat controversial subject because you don\u2019t have a don of biblical data on it.\u00a0 But there basically, by my count, at least three views on it.\u00a0 The first one there, he fell in eternity past.\u00a0 I sort of gave you, before the world was I sort of gave you what I think were some of the problems with that.\u00a0 I lean towards the third view myself, but what we\u2019re doing is looking at the second option here\u2014did Satan fall in between the first two verses of Genesis 1?\n\nAnd unfortunately that\u2019s not an easy discussion to have because it involves a treatment of something called the Gap Theory, which we introduced last week if you\u2019ve never heard of it.\u00a0 So last week we looked at the definition of the Gap Theory and the evidence favoring the Gap Theory.\u00a0 And the definition of the Gap Theory, and before I give it to you let\u2019s just go ahead and read Genesis chapter \u00a0\u00a01 and verses 1-3.\u00a0 It says, \u201cIn the beginning\u00a0God\u00a0created the heavens and the earth.\u00a0[2] The earth was\u00a0formless and void, and\u00a0darkness was over the\u00a0surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the\u00a0surface of the waters.\u00a0[3] Then\u00a0God said, \u2018Let there be light\u2019; and there was light.\u201d\n\nSo according to the Gap Theory what you have is you have the first creation brought into existence in verse 1.\u00a0 And there are different variations of the Gap Theory as we have talked about, but classical Gap Theory is verse 1 is the creation that was, including the Garden of Eden (according to some).\u00a0 According to some, not all, like the late Merrill Unger, there was actually a pre-Adamic race of people.\u00a0 And so what you have in between the end of verse 1 and the beginning of verse 2 is an era of time that could be millions of years or billions of years.\u00a0 But that\u2019s when Satan and Lucifer originally fell. Satan\u2019s fall marred that original creation and God brought an instantaneous flood, or a judgment and that\u2019s why verse 2 talks about how the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the deep, \u201cover the surface of the waters.\u201d\u00a0 Why were there waters?\u00a0 According to the Gap Theory because of flood number one.\n\nSo as you get into this you start to see, well, according to those that believe this there are two Gardens of Eden, one in Genesis 1:1 and then a second one in Genesis 2. And then there were actually two floods; there was a flood in between the end of verse 1 and the beginning of verse 2, and later on in Biblical history there was what\u2019s called the Noahic flood.\u00a0 And so verse 2 (they believe) is describing the chaotic condition of the world following Lucifer\u2019s rebellion and God\u2019s judgment, \u201cformless and void,\u201d \u201cdarkness over the surface of the deep,\u201d and \u201cthe Spirit of God\u201d in some translations \u201cwas brooding.\u201d\n\nSo what you have then in verse 3 is not so much a recreation\u2026 well maybe it is a recreation, it\u2019s not so much a new creation but it\u2019s a renovation.\u00a0 What God is doing in verse 3 in six literal days, all the way through the end of the chapter, all the way through the end of the creation week, is He\u2019s fixing what got broke.\u00a0 And is there evidence for the Gap \u00a0Theory?\u00a0 What I tried to do last time is kind of set this up by giving you\u2026 there are 13 major arguments that they use.\n\nSo there\u2019s the first seven that they use and the remaining six that they use. And today\u2019s teaching is largely going to\u00a0 build on what we covered last week.\u00a0 So if you didn\u2019t have a chance to be here last week go to our website and access the archive from last week; I would encourage\u00a0 you to do so because I tried to be extremely fair about this and set forth the evidence that is used to support this idea of the Gap Theory.\u00a0 And of course the reason I\u2019m going into all of this is it relates to the fall of Satan and it relates to the whole conversation concerning when exactly Satan fell.\n\nSo having said all of that what I want to do today as time permits is I want to respond to that evidence favoring the Gap Theory because apparently I did a pretty good job presenting the Gap Theory last week, such a good job that people cornered my wife in the hall and said \u201cdoes Andy believe in the Gap Theory?\u201d\u00a0 And what we\u2019re going to see here is I don\u2019t believe in the Gap Theory and I want to explain why I don\u2019t believe in it, why I don\u2019t think it\u2019s the most likely of alternative options.\u00a0 The Gap Theory you\u2019ll see in the Scofield Reference Bible and so a lot of conservative Christians are reared with the Gap Theory, believing the Gap Theory is basically gospel truth.\u00a0 And if you want to believe in the Gap Theory that\u2019s fine, I just don\u2019t think it\u2019s the most likely of alternatives.\n\nSo what is the response to the Gap Theory?\u00a0 The reason I think this issue is important is because of Psalm 11:3 which says, \u201cIf the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?\u201d\u00a0 And the reason the Gap Theory has always sort of, I guess bothered me a little bit is it\u2019s an interpretation that people have come up with at the very beginning of the Bible.\u00a0 You get into the first three verses and they\u2019ve got this interpretation.\u00a0 And whether you believe in the Gap Theory, don\u2019t believe in the Gap Theory, one of the things to understand is whatever you do in Genesis 1:1 is going to affect the rest of the Bible somehow, because everything that follows in subsequent Scripture is built on early Genesis.\n\nAnd here we\u2019re not just talking about early Genesis, we\u2019re talking about the earliest of Genesis.\u00a0 And another verse that\u2019s helpful, as you look at evidence, is Proverbs 18:17, \u201cThe first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.\u201d\u00a0 So there\u2019s thirteen arguments for the Gap Theory but let\u2019s take a look at these one by one.\n\nThe first argument you remember is that verse 2 begins with a Hebrew conjunction, it doesn\u2019t show up there in your English translation but there\u2019s a Hebrew conjunction beginning verse 2, and it\u2019s called a vav,<\/em> I guess in English it kind of looks like an \u201cI\u201d with a little jag out to the left, it\u2019s called a Hebrew conjunction called a vav<\/em>. And this is how Gap theorists want that conjunction translated.\u00a0 \u201cIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth\u201d and they want that Hebrew vav<\/em> translated \u201cbut,\u201d \u201cbut the earth was formless and void.\u00a0 And that becomes sort of important to their interpreta\u00adtion because they think translating that Hebrew <\/em>vav<\/em> \u201cbut\u201d is contrasting verses 2 with verse one.\u00a0 In\n\nother words, verse 1 is a description of the world as God originally created it; verse 2 is a description of that prior earth that\u2019s been marred through Satan\u2019s rebellion and the judgment of Lucifer.\n\nSo really the first question is, is that a really good translation of that Hebrew conjunction vav<\/em>.\u00a0 I really don\u2019t think so.\u00a0 I think it\u2019s much more consistent with the overall usage of that vav <\/em>to translate it not as \u201cbut\u201d but as \u201cnow.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, a lot of translations do that.\u00a0 So it should read as follows:\u00a0 \u201cIn the beginning\u00a0God\u00a0created the heavens and the earth.\u201d\u00a0 And it\u2019s not saying \u201cbut\u201d (contrast) \u201cthe earth was formless and void.\u201d\u00a0 It\u2019s saying now, in other words, it\u2019s adding to the story.\u00a0 And that would be consistent with the overall usage of that Hebrew conjunction vav<\/em>.\u00a0 In other words, translating it \u201cnow\u201d is consistent with its overall usage.\u00a0 And so to believe in the Gap Theory you see a problem there, you have to rely upon a secondary use of a word; you have to rely upon that word in terms of how it\u2019s nor normally used but abnormally used.\u00a0 And if you rely on it as how it\u2019s normally used there really is no grammatical break between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1.\n\nThe second argument the Gap Theory uses is the verb H\u0101y\u0101h<\/em>, meaning became.\u00a0 So a Gap Theorist wants the verses to read as follows:\u00a0 \u201cIn the beginning\u00a0God\u00a0created the heavens and the earth.\u00a0[2] The earth\u201d now the NASB I think it is translates Hayah as was, but they say no, Hayah should be translated as became.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 \u201c\u2026the earth became formless and void.\u201d\u00a0 Well how did the earth become \u201cformless and void.\u201d\u00a0 According to the Gap Theory it became \u201cformless and void because of the fall of Lucifer and his judgment that took place between the end of verse 1 and the beginning of verse 2.\u00a0 And once again that\u2019s not the normal meaning of H\u0101y\u0101h<\/em>.\u00a0 the normal rendering of it is \u201cwas,\u201d not \u201cbecame.\u201d\u00a0 So here is the problem with the Gap\u00a0 Theory right out of the gate;\u00a0 you\u2019re relying upon two secondary meanings of words to get it to work.\n\nNow this is not my criticism alone.\u00a0 Here\u2019s a book that\u2019s helpful on some of these things.\u00a0 I don\u2019t necessarily agree with everything he says in this book, Bernard Ramm, but he has a very good critique of what is called the Gap Theory. And he writes this in a book called The Christian View of Science and Scripture<\/em> \u00a0[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 203.]\u00a0 He says, \u201cThe interpretive objection\u201d to the Gap Theory that is, \u201cis this: the entire interpretation of geology and Genesis is made to hinge on secondary meanings of two Hebrew words<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 What Hebrew words?\u00a0 The waw<\/em> at the beginning of verse 2 and h\u0101y\u0101h.<\/em>\u00a0 \u00a0\u201cTo indicate that in some cases waw<\/em> may mean but<\/em>, and that h\u0101y\u0101h<\/u><\/em> means became<\/em>, does not give full warrant to insert these meanings in Genesis 1:2 and require all geology to conform.\u201d\u00a0 His point is basically a simple one; the Gap Theory is relying upon two interpretations of two Hebrew words, one a verb, one a conjunction that are secondary in terms of their normal meaning\u00a0 That\u2019s not the normal meaning of h\u0101y\u0101h<\/em>, that\u2019s not its normal usage and that\u2019s not the normal usage of the conjunction\n\nAnd not only that, but you have to look for the exact right combination.\u00a0 What do you have there in Genesis1:2.\u00a0 You have a h\u0101y\u0101h<\/em>, you have a noun, \u201cthe earth,\u201d and then you have a verb which I think means \u201cwas.\u201d\u00a0 The Gap theorist thinks it means \u201cbecame.\u201d\u00a0 So watch this now:\u00a0 bav<\/em>, verb and the verb is in a particular parsing.\u00a0 Basically the way it\u2019s parsed is qal<\/em> perfect third person. \u00a0So look at this combination: bav<\/em>, noun, verb, qal<\/em> perfect third person and here\u2019s the question\u2014does that combination ever anywhere in Hebrew Bible, ANYWHERE meaning \u201cbecame.\u201d\u00a0 And those that have looked into this very carefully have told us, and this is one of the big problems with the Gap Theory, that combination NEVER means \u201cbecame.\u201d\u00a0 For example you\u2019ll see the identical combination in Judges 8:11, and Jonah 3:3.\u00a0 [Judges 8:11, \u201cGideon went up by the way of those who lived in tents on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah, and attacked the camp when the camp was unsuspecting.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Jonah 3:3, \u201cSo Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three days' walk.\u201d]\n\nLook at the Jonah passage.\u00a0 It says, \u201cSo Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the\u00a0Lord. \u00a0Now\u201d<\/u> there\u2019s the waw<\/em>, \u00a0\u201cNineveh<\/u>\u201d there\u2019s\u00a0 your noun, \u201cwas\u00a0there\u2019s the h\u0101y\u0101h <\/em>in a qal perfect third person form.\u00a0 <\/em>\u201cNow Nineveh was\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>an\u00a0exceedingly great city, a three days\u2019 walk.\u201d\u00a0 No one would look at that and say Nineveh suddenly\u00a0 became\u2014see that, a great city right then and there.\u00a0 Nineveh always was a great city.\u00a0 So to believe in the Gap Theory you\u2019ve got to translate Genesis 1:2 with that same three-fold combination differently than you would anywhere else in Scripture.\u00a0 And so that really becomes another problem with the Gap Theory exegetically.\n\nA third argument that\u2019s used by Gap Theory people is (or Gap Theory advocates) is the expression tohu<\/em> & bohu<\/em>.\u00a0 So look at Genesis 1:2, it says, \u201c\u00a0The earth was <\/u>formless and void\u2026.\u201d\u00a0 Formless and void is a translation from the Hebrew words, tohu<\/em> & bohu<\/em>.\u00a0 And essentially what you have taking place in the Gap Theory is they find that same combination of words used somewhere totally remotely in the Bible and they\u2019ll tell you that when those two words are\u00a0 used together they always mean judgment.\u00a0 So they\u2019ll find it\u2019s use in Isaiah 34:11, speaking of judgment, \u201cthe plumb line of emptiness\u201d talking about judgment and what the earth looks like when God judges it, tohu<\/em> & bohu<\/em>.\u00a0 .\u00a0 [Isaiah 34:11, \u201cBut pelican and hedgehog will possess it, and owl and raven will dwell in it; and He will stretch over it the line of desolation and the plumb line of emptiness.\u201d]\n\nAnd probably their favorite passage is Jeremiah 4:23-25.\u00a0 It says, \u201cI looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;\u201d t<\/em>ohu and bohu<\/em>. \u201cand to the heavens, and they had no light. [24] I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro, [25] and I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled.\u201d\n\nThe logic of their position is tohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em> means judgment elsewhere in the Bible.\u00a0 So I see those same words in Genesis 1:2, it means judgment.\u00a0 [Genesis 1:2, \u201cThe earth was\u00a0[h\u0101y\u0101h<\/em>; became] <\/u><\/strong>formless and void, and\u00a0darkness was over the\u00a0surface of the deep, and\u00a0the Spirit of God\u00a0was\u00a0moving over the\u00a0surface of the waters.\u201d]\u00a0 Well what caused the judgment?\u00a0 Lucifer\u2019s rebellion and God\u2019s judgment on the earth because of Lucifer\u2019s rebellion putting the world in a judged state.\u00a0 And that\u2019s exactly what the Scofield Reference Bible says.\u00a0 The Scofield Reference Bible I have a pretty high view of, created around 1909, is an advocate of the Gap Theory.\u00a0 And notice what the Scofield Reference Bible says concerning Jeremiah 4:23.\u00a0 \u201cIt\u201d what\u2019s \u201cit\u201d?\u00a0 Tohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em>, formless and void.\u00a0 \u201cIt describes the condition of the earth as the result of the judgment. . .\u201d and then it says, \u201c\n\nwhich overthrew the primal order of Genesis I:I.\u201d\u00a0 What \u201cprimal order\u201d are they talking about?\u00a0 The original creation, the creation before creation that Satan\u2019s rebellion and God\u2019s judgment of Satan\u2019s fall marred.\n\nSo is that really a legitimate way to interpret t<\/em>ohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em>?\u00a0 Let me quote, just for a minute, the words of Bernard Ramm again.\u00a0 And he writes this: \u201cIn the case of tohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em>\u2026it is equally admissible to consider these words as referring to the unformed nature of the earth before God impressed upon it His creative will. A marble block and a crumbled statue are both formless. The former is in a state which awaits a form and from that formlessness emerges the image. When God made the earth He made it like a marble block out of which He would bring the beauty of the world.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [The Christian View of Science and Scripture<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 203.]\n\nIn other words, when you start examining t<\/em>ohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em> individually in the Hebrew lexicon what you discover is there\u2019s not one meaning to those words.\u00a0 Yes, those words can mean a judged state elsewhere in the Bible, no dispute about that.\u00a0 But that\u2019s not what those words always mean.\u00a0 They could mean also something that\u2019s neutral, something that is unfinished, something that is in an undeveloped state.\u00a0 The best example I have of it is you\u2019re a potter and you want to make a vase or a cup or whatever and\u00a0 you take your lump of dough and you put it on the potter\u2019s wheel.\u00a0 Now when you put that lump of dough on the potter\u2019s wheel there\u2019s nothing wrong with that lump of dough. \u00a0It hasn\u2019t gone through a judgment.\u00a0 Lucifer didn\u2019t wreck it.\u00a0 It\u2019s just in a state that\u2019s unformed and now it just has to be shaped so the potter, as it\u2019s moving on the potter\u2019s wheel, can give it the design that the potter wants it to have.\n\nAnd that\u2019s all t<\/em>ohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em> means there, Genesis 1:2.\u00a0 It\u2019s talking about creation at an infancy state, not being shaped yet.\u00a0 And creation at that state, verse 1, \u201cThe earth was formless and void and the darkness was over the face of the deep,\u201d it wasn\u2019t even fit for man to inhabit yet; it wasn\u2019t even fit for animals to inhabit yet.\u00a0 Why is that?\u00a0 Because everything is water, you don\u2019t even have land yet; that doesn\u2019t come up until later.\n\nSo essentially what Genesis 1:2 is talking about here, it\u2019s not talking about something that\u2019s been judged on account of Lucifer\u2019s rebellion; it\u2019s talking about creation that came into existence, I believe on day one, and it just hadn\u2019t been shaped\u00a0 yet and it hadn\u2019t been formed yet and so what God is doing in the rest of the creation week is He\u2019s filling and forming.\u00a0 For example, on day one, later on day one He creates light and on day four He creates luminaries, which are now going to emanate that light.\u00a0 On day two He creates water and sky.\u00a0 On day five He creates sea animals to inhabit the waters and birds to inhabit the sky.\u00a0 On day three He creates land and vegetation and on day six He creates land animals and man to inhabit that new land and also to consume that vegetation.\u00a0 So nothing is wrong with anything that you have there in Genesis 1:2; it\u2019s just in an unformed, unfilled state.\n\nSo to read all of this information about a judged creation from another part of the Bible into those verses I think that\u2019s an exegetical problem with the Gap Theory.\u00a0 And whether you agree with me on this or not, that\u2019s fine, we can still be friends.\u00a0 But one of the things to learn about this if nothing else is method.\u00a0 Hermetical method, exegetical method is a big deal.\u00a0 Why is that?\u00a0 Because words seldom are technical words in the Bible.\u00a0 In fact, in all of language seldom are words, technical words\u2026 what\u2019s a technical word?\u00a0\u00a0 A technical word is a word that always means the same thing everywhere it\u2019s used.\u00a0 Rarely do you have that; typically what you have with a single word are multiple meanings.\n\nLet me give you an example.\u00a0 Take the word apple, for example.\u00a0 How many meanings can you generate from the word \u201capple.\u201d\u00a0 It could be a piece of fruit, it could be a computer, it could be New York City (the Big Apple), it could be the pupil of one\u2019s eye, \u201cthe apple of my eye.\u201d\u00a0 So when I see the word apple in a text how in the world would I ever figure out what meaning to supply.\u00a0 Anybody have any ideas?\u00a0 The context tells me. The context will fill in that meaning. So as the real estate folks like to say the three rules of real estate are location, location, location.\u00a0 The three rules of Bible study are context, context, context.\u00a0 Context gives words meaning; words don\u2019t have meaning independent of the context that they\u2019re in.\u00a0 And there is a hermetical error that people frequently commit; the fancy name for it is illegitimate totality transfer, just ITT for short.\u00a0 How\u2019s that?\u00a0 If you want the guy\u2019s name that came up with this it\u2019s a linguist named James Barr.\n\nAnd basically ITT, Illegitimate Totality Transfer occurs when you take the meaning of the same word from another context (do you follow me)\u00a0 and read it back into your present context when the present context doesn\u2019t support that meaning.\u00a0 That\u2019s called ITT, Illegitimate Totality Transfer.\u00a0 You have to watch theologians very, very carefully because they\u2019ll do this to you all the time.\u00a0 For example, in Five Point Calvinism there\u2019s a view that Christ really didn\u2019t die for the whole world, He only died for the elect.\n\nAnd you say well how\u00a0 do you explain that from John 3:16 which says, \u201cFor God so loved the world,\u201d and they\u2019ll say oh, brother, you\u2019ve got to be careful with how you\u2019re using that word \u201cworld.\u201d\u00a0 And they\u2019ll take you over to John 12:19 where Jesus is riding into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and everybody is saying the world has gone out to Him, and they\u2019ll say to you, you don\u2019t really think the whole world was following Christ on Palm Sunday do you?\u00a0 That was the folks in Jerusalem.\u00a0 And if you don\u2019t understand what illegitimate totality transfer is they\u2019ll fool you with that because what they just did is they defined the word \u201cworld\u201d (which has multiple meanings) from a remote and foreign context and read that into the present context.\n\nAnd see, I don\u2019t really think you need to become a Bible scholar to insulate your mind from error; what you have to do is you have to learn to become familiar with the basic content and context of the Bible.\u00a0 And the contest of John 3:16 does not support a limited meaning.\u00a0 It may mean that somewhere else, no problem.\u00a0 But that\u2019s what it means over there, that\u2019s not necessarily what it means over here.\u00a0 And you see, this is what you have going on here with Gap Theory is they\u2019re not acknowledging the fact that tohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em>, there\u2019s a broad semantic range to those words. And yes, they mean judgment somewhere else but the only thing you\u2019ve proven is that what they mean over there.\u00a0 That\u2019s not necessarily what they mean here in Genesis 1:2.\n\nSo I have a few examples, this one comes from Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis<\/em>,\u00a0 These are just to illustrate how fast the meanings of words can change contextually.\u00a0 Sometimes a word changes its meaning within the very same context.\u00a0 Ken Hamm says, \u201cBack in my father\u2019s day it took ten days to drive across the Australian Outback during the day.\u201d\u00a0 Wow, how\u2019s that for whiplash.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the same word, day, singular, same word, plural, days then we\u2019re back to singular day.\u00a0 Now \u201cday\u201d doesn\u2019t always mean the same thing every time it\u2019s used, does it? \u00a0\u00a0The first time it\u2019s used it\u2019s referring to an age, \u201cBack in my father\u2019s day,\u201d that\u2019s not necessarily a twenty four time period.\u00a0 That\u2019s however long your father lived.\u00a0 But then in the same sentence it says \u201cit took ten days,\u201d well now we\u2019re talking about, because there\u2019s a number added, we\u2019re talking about twenty-four hour days there, ten days.\n\nAnd then it says to \u201cto drive across the Australian outback during the day.\u201d\u00a0 Now\u00a0 we\u2019re not even talking about a twenty-four day, we\u2019re talking about the twelve hour daylight portion.\u00a0 Do you follow what\u2019s going on here; this is how language functions and there would be no possible way for me to fill in the meaning to each of those words, the same word, unless I had a context here to help me.\u00a0 So id I were to take the meaning of one word, let\u2019s say the third use, and say well it\u2019s the same word and read it back into the first use, I would be committing what error?\u00a0 ITT, Illegitimate Totality Transfer.\n\nLet me give you another example; this comes from my friend, George Gunn, at Shasta Bible College, and look at the word \u201crun\u201d here, in a single paragraph.\u00a0\u00a0 Look at how many meanings it has.\u00a0 He illustratively says, \u201cI ran<\/u><\/em> out of ingredients for the salad, so I decided to make a quick run<\/u><\/em> down to the store. While at the store, I left the car engine running<\/u><\/em> while I made my purchase, thinking that I would be right out again. However, while I was in the store, I ran<\/u><\/em> into my good friend Edward who by the way happened to be running<\/u><\/em> for county supervisor. This resulted in my having to endure a somewhat long-winded run<\/u> <\/em>down on how his campaign was running<\/u><\/em>. Finally, fearing that my car would run<\/u><\/em> out of gas, I ran<\/u><\/em> with great haste out to the parking lot and returned home with the car surely running<\/u><\/em> only on fumes.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [George Gunn, John 14:1-3 \u2013 The Father\u2019s House: Are We There Yet?,<\/em> 30. www.pre-trib.org<\/a>.]\n\nThat\u2019s an amazing example.\u00a0 I wanted to add a few lines to talk about a woman who had a run in her stockings, [laugher], or maybe someone that ate some bad food the night before and had a case of the runs [more laughter] but I guess that wouldn\u2019t be appropriate.\u00a0 But the fact of the matter is it\u2019s the same word.\u00a0 See how the meaning keeps changing over and over and over and over again.\u00a0 And so you can\u2019t define a word because it\u2019s used the same way somewhere else.\u00a0 So that\u2019s basically what you have going on with the Gap Theory, you\u2019ve got this expression tohu<\/em> and bohu<\/em>, formless and void, which does mean judgment in Jeremiah 4, no argument here!\u00a0 But that\u2019s not necessarily what it means in Genesis 1.\u00a0 I think Bernard Ramm has it right, it\u2019s not judged creation that Lucifer wrecked, it\u2019s just creation in its unfilled, unformed state.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nTohu and Bohu\u00a0 <\/em>\n\nGenesis 1:2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Jeremiah 4:23\n\nOriginal creation\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Future judgment\n\nCreation \u201cvery good\u201d\u00a0 (Genesis 1:31\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Creation not \u201cvery good\u201d\n\nEntire earth (Genesis 1:1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Land of Israel\n\nLooking backward\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Looking forward\n\nNo humans\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Surviving humans\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI put this little chart together just to show you the differences between the context of Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23, because remember the Scofield Reference Bible links the two passages and I think that\u2019s ITT, Illegitimate Totality Transfer.\n\nGenesis 1:2 is talking about original creation; Jeremiah 4:23 is talking about future judgment.\u00a0 Genesis 1:2 is talking about a time period when God says everything is not just good but what?\u00a0 \u201cvery good.\u201d\n\n[Genesis 1:2, \u201cThe earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.\u201d\u00a0 Jeremiah 4:23, \u201cI looked on the earth, and behold, it was \u00a0formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light.\u201d]\n\nBut that\u2019s not what\u2019s going on in Jeremiah 4, the fall of man has already happened, the final judgment has taken place, so that\u2019s really a time period where things are not very good.\u00a0 Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 concerns the entire earth.\u00a0 The nation of Israel doesn\u2019t even exist\u00a0 yet.\u00a0 Jeremiah 4 concerns the land of Israel.\u00a0 Genesis 1 is looking backwards; Jeremiah 4 is looking forward.\u00a0 Genesis 1, you don\u2019t even see human beings in existence yet; human beings don\u2019t even come into existence until day six.\u00a0 Jeremiah 4 is talking about the plight of humans that have been killed and surviving humans.\n\nSo yes, tohu<\/em> & bohu<\/em>, no question about it, means judgment in Jeremiah 4:23 but when the Scofield Reference Bible links Jeremiah 4:23 back to Genesis 1:1 it\u2019s not understanding the fact that there are multiple meanings to words, tohu and bohu <\/em>and consequently what\u2019s happened is [can't understand word] a exegetical\u00a0 interpretive error has been committed called ITT, Illegitimate Totality Transfer.\n\nSo if you sort of absorb what I\u2019ve said over the last five minutes, whether you agree with what I\u2019m doing on the Gap Theory or not, just absorbing that much will help you, it will put you light years ahead in terms of protecting\u00a0 your mind from theological mistakes because what people do is all the time they come to the Bible trying to make the Bible fit what they want it to say.\u00a0 We\u2019re all guilty of that.\u00a0 And one of the great ways to deceive yourself and deceive other people is to use the same word with the same meaning as it\u2019s found in a remote context.\u00a0 I mean, theologians, the very best, I watched them do this over and\u00a0 over and over again.\n\nThe fourth argument used by Gap Theory is the expression \u201cdarkness,\u201d verse 2 says, \u201cThe earth was\u00a0formless and void, and\u00a0darkness was over the\u00a0surface of the deep,\u201d now they\u2019ll run to every passage they can find in the Bible where darkness means something bad.\u00a0 It does mean that in John 3:19, right. \u00a0\u201cThis is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.\u201d Darkness is bad in the Bible they\u2019ll say.\u00a0 Jude 13, \u201cWhile false teachers wild waves of the sea casting up their own shame, like foam, wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved.\u201d\u00a0 See, darkness is bad.\u00a0 In their thinking darkness is always bad.\u00a0 So therefore in Genesis 1:2, \u201cThe earth was formless and void, and\u00a0darkness was over the\u00a0surface of the deep,\u201d if darkness is bad elsewhere darkness has to be bad here too\u2026 right?\u00a0 Now why is darkness interpreted as something negative?\u00a0 Because Satan fell between the end of verse 1 and the beginning of verse 2; God brought a lottery judgment and so the earth is in a judged state and they\u2019ll say the word darkness there proves it.\u00a0 Do you follow me what they\u2019re doing?\n\nWell, I\u2019m here to tell you that darkness doesn\u2019t always mean something bad.\u00a0 Darkness symbolizes bad things in the Bible but darkness doesn\u2019t always mean something bad.\u00a0 In other words, what they\u2019re doing is they\u2019re confusing the symbol with the things symbolized.\u00a0 So if I\u2019m in my closet and I\u2019m trying to get myself dressed and all of a sudden the light bulb goes out does that mean some kind of sin occurred.\u00a0 I hope not!\n\nThe only thing the darkness represents is there is no light and you see, when Genesis 1:2 says \u201cdarkness was over the surface of the deep\u201d that\u2019s not sin, that\u2019s not evil, that\u2019s not a problem, all it\u2019s talking about is creation as it then existed is without light, because what does God say in the next verse?\u00a0 \u201cLet there be light.\u201d\u00a0 The creation is just as good in its unformed state as it will be in verse 3, God is just going to add another detail.\u00a0 But darkness in and of itself doesn\u2019t necessarily mean evil.\u00a0 It does mean evil elsewhere but what people with the Gap Theory are doing is they\u2019re trying to find everywhere in the Bible where darkness means something bad, and it does, and they\u2019re trying to read that back into Genesis 1:4.\u00a0 [Genesis 1:4, \u201cGod saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.\u201d]\n\nFor example, as\u00a0 you go through these creation days, verse 5, verse 8, verse 13, and verses 18-19, what does God keep saying?\u00a0 There was evening and then there was morning, and He keeps saying it\u2019s good!\u00a0 He says it\u2019s good with creation day one, verse 4.\u00a0 The next one, verse 9, the next one verse 12, the next one verse 18, the next one verse 21, and finally the next one verse 25, finally at the end He says it\u2019s what?\u00a0 It\u2019s\u00a0 \u201cvery good.\u201d\u00a0 Now that\u2019s of all of those mornings and evenings.\u00a0\u00a0 You see that?\u00a0 But God never a single time in the creation week says it\u2019s good except for the evening part, because all it\u2019s communicating here in Genesis 1 is the absence of light.\u00a0 There is no statement anywhere of God\u2019s disapproval of the darkness in verse 2.\u00a0 And yet people are convinced of that because they\u2019re going to other passages of the Bible where darkness means evil and reading it into their passage.\u00a0 In other words, they\u2019re not just interpreting what\u2019s there, they\u2019re bringing all this baggage from other remote parts of the Bible and reading it in.\u00a0 And that\u2019s something you want to try to avoid as a Bible reader and a Bible interpreter.\n\nThe fifth argument used by Gap Theory people or advocates is, I mentioned this last week, the bara<\/em> and asah<\/em> distinction.\u00a0 Look again at Genesis 1:1, \u201cIn the beginning God created\u201d barah<\/em> is the Hebrew word translated created \u201c the heavens and the earth.\u201d\u00a0 And then you get down to about verse 16 and suddenly the word changes and it says, \u201cGod made the two great lights,\u201d now it\u2019s no longer barah<\/em> but asah,<\/em> and what you find in Gap Theory mentality is the reason the verb switched is God did create in verse 1, the original creation that Lucifer wrecked and God\u2019s judgment wrecked.\u00a0 But in the creation week itself God is not creating as much as He is renovating what got busted.\n\nThe example I like to use is you have a house, you leave the house for a weekend, someone breaks into the house, vandalizes the house, puts graffiti, spray paint all over the house, ruins the furniture, what are\u00a0 you going to do?\u00a0 You\u2019re probably not going to get a new house; you\u2019re probably just going to plaster over, paint over, get new furniture.\u00a0 In other words, you\u2019re going to fix what got broken.\u00a0 That\u2019s basically what Gap Theory is saying.\u00a0 The creation week is not the original creation.\u00a0 It\u2019s not God shaping and populating that original lump of clay.\u00a0 What it is is God is renovating what got broken. Do you see that?\u00a0 And they believe that their justified in that belief because verbs switch from barah<\/em> to asah<\/em>.\n\nThis is exactly what the Scofield Reference Bible says.\u00a0 I think I brought this up last time.\u00a0 It says, \u00a0\u201cOnly three created acts of God are recorded in this chapter, the heavens and the earth, animal life, and human life.\u00a0 The first created act refers to the dateless past, neither here nor in Genesis 1:14-18, is an original act of creation implied.\u00a0 [Genesis 1:14-18, \u201cThen God said, \u201cLet there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; [15] and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth\u201d; and it was so. [16] God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. [17] God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, [18] and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. [19] There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.\u201d]\n\nA different word is used; we\u2019ve gone from the switch from barah<\/em> to asah<\/em>, a different word is used.\u00a0 The sense is made to appear and be made physical. The sun and the moon were created in the beginning so what's going on in day four?\u00a0 Well, according to Gap Theory the light came from the sun (of course) but the vapor diffused the light and later the sun appeared in the clouded sky.\u00a0 In other words, the sun just became visible on day four.\u00a0 I am not of that persuasion at all!\u00a0\u00a0 I believe you don\u2019t have a sun, s-u-n until day four because the sun is an ex nihilo<\/em> creation of God on day four.\u00a0 So why would people disagree with that?\u00a0 Because the word change from barah<\/em> to asah<\/em>.\n\nSo the question is that legitimate?\u00a0 Is it legitimate based on a different word to assume that the creation week is a renovation project of God?\u00a0 And I would say no because there is a semantic overlap between barah<\/em> and asah<\/em>; barah<\/em> and asah <\/em>don\u2019t always mean completely different things.\u00a0 Now sometimes they do\u00a0 but sometimes their meaning can overlap with each other. I wish I had brought in my little [can't understand word] diagram.\u00a0 You guys did [same word] where\u00a0 you\u2019ve got two circles overlapping and where the two circles overlap is that gray area, right?\u00a0 And that\u2019s what you can do with barah<\/em> and asah<\/em>.\u00a0 Sometimes barah<\/em> has a completely different meaning than asah<\/em> and sometimes asah<\/em> has a different meaning than barah<\/em> and I\u2019m sorry for the people on media that just tuned in, they\u2019re\u00a0 probably thinking I\u2019m speaking on tongues and we\u2019ve gone charismatic and Pentecostal here.\n\nBut sometimes with barah<\/em> and asah<\/em> overlap in terms of their meaning.\u00a0 So you can\u2019t say oh, it\u2019s a different word, therefore it\u2019s a renovation project rather than an ex nihilo<\/em> creation; ex nihilo<\/em> is something out of nothing creation, verse 1 but the creation week is a renovation project because of the word change.\u00a0 You can\u2019t do that because there is a semantic overlap between\u00a0 barah<\/em> and asah.\u00a0 <\/em>Sometimes barah<\/em> and asah <\/em>mean exactly the same thing.\u00a0 Even our own context does that.\u00a0 Look at this.\u00a0 \u201cThen God said, \u2018Let us make\u201d asah<\/em> \u201cman in our image.\u201d\u00a0 Verse 27, \u201cGod created\u201d what\u2019s the verb there, barah<\/em>, \u201cman in His own image.\u201d\u00a0 You\u2019ll notice that both verbs, asah<\/em> and barah<\/em> even in Genesis 1 are used to describe the same creative act of God because of the semantic overlap between barah <\/em>and asah<\/em>.\n\nNotice Genesis 2:4, roughly the same context.\u00a0 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, barah<\/em>.\u00a0 \u00a0[Genesis 2:4, \u201cThis is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created,] in the day that the LORD God made\u201d asah<\/em> \u201cthe earth and heaven.\u201d\u00a0 You see how both verbs are used to describe the same creative act of God?\u00a0 Outside of our context, Isaiah 43:7, \u201cEveryone who is called by My name whom I created\u201d barah<\/em> \u201c\u00a0 for My own glory, whom I have formed even whom I have made\u201d asah<\/em>, there barah<\/em> and asah<\/em> are describing the same creative act of God.\u00a0 So simply a switch in a word does not give someone a right to say this is the renovation during the creation week and it\u2019s different than original creation in verse 1.\n\nJohn Whitcomb, in his book The Early Earth <\/em>points this out.\u00a0 \u201cGenesis 1:21<\/u> states that \u2018God created [bara<\/u><\/em>] the great sea-monsters<\/u> . . .\u2019 while verse 25<\/u> states that God made [asah<\/em>] the beasts of the earth<\/u>.\u00a0\u00a0 Surely we are not to think that the sea creatures were directly created on the fifth day, but land animals were merely \u2018appointed\u2019 or \u2018made to appear\u2019 on the sixth day! All those who hold that bara<\/em> and asah <\/em>cannot be used on the same kind of divine activity are faced with a serious difficulty here. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In 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) but they were actually created on the fifth day\u201d\u00a0 [John Whitcomb, The Early Earth <\/em>(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), 128.]\n\nSo the Scofield Reference Bible, to get this whole thing to work, has switched the creation day for one of the things God created.\u00a0 And John Whitcomb points out that error.\u00a0 That\u2019s just another one of the many problems with the Scofield Reference Bible and the Gap Theory.\n\nA sixth argument used by Gap theorists is Isaiah 45:18.\u00a0 Isaiah 45:18 says, \u201c\u201cFor thus says the\u00a0Lord, who\u00a0created the heavens (He is the God who\u00a0formed the earth and made it, He established it\u00a0and\u00a0did not create it\u00a0a\u00a0waste place<\/u>\u201d now look at the Hebrew, lo tohu<\/u><\/em>,\u00a0\u201cbut\u00a0formed it to be\u00a0inhabited).\u201d\u00a0 Now Genesis 1:2 says, \u201cThe earth was formless and void\u2026.,\u201d there\u2019s bohu<\/em> \u00a0so God never created the earth tohu<\/em>, but it became tohu<\/em>.\u00a0 God didn\u2019t originally create the earth tohu<\/em> but it became tohu<\/em>.\u00a0 So what caused the tohu<\/em>?\u00a0 The fall of Satan.\u00a0 When in reality all that verse, Isaiah 45:18\u00a0 is saying when it says God did not create the earth a waste place it simply means that when God brought original creation into existence He didn\u2019t just think it was good, He thought it was what?\u00a0 \u201cVery good.\u201d\n\nNow look at this, all that God made was \u201cvery good.\u201d\u00a0 So if everything that God made, going all the way back to the beginning of the chapter, was not just good but \u201cvery good\u201d how in the world could the beginning of verse 3 be a renovation of what got broken?\n\nThey also say,\u00a0 you recall from last week, that the Spirit of God was \u201cbrooding on the waters,\u201d and they\u2019ll go to Bible translation like the Amplified Version which says, \u201cThe Spirit of God was moving,\u201d hovering, or brooding \u201cover the face of the waters\u201d and they\u2019ll start talking about the grieving of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 4:30.\u00a0 [Ephesians 4:30, \u201cDo not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.\u201d]\u00a0 They\u2019ll say it says in the amplified version that He was brooding (the Spirit) he was grieved in other words.\u00a0 Why was he grieved?\u00a0 Because of Satan\u2019s fall marring original creation and God\u2019s watery judgment when the reality of the situation is that verse isn\u2019t saying anything about the Spirit grieving.\n\nWhat it says is the Spirit of God was hovering, the Spirit of God was moving on the waters.\u00a0 Now \u00a0\u00a0why was the Spirit of God hovering and moving on the waters?\u00a0 Because the Spirit of God was anticipating what was going to come through the hand of God as God took the lump of clay, which \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0is and of itself is not a problem, it just needed to be shaped and populated.\u00a0 So what\u00a0 God is doing in the creation week is that same lump of clay is going around the potter\u2019s wheel and God is shaping it this way and God is shaping it that way and He\u2019s shaping and populating a lump of clay.\u00a0 That\u2019s why the Spirit of God is hovering on the waters; the Spirit of God is anticipating moving in terms of what God is about to do.\u00a0 So there\u2019s no basis for reading into verse 2 a bunch of information about the grieving of the Holy Spirit.\n\nYou know, there\u2019s a lot of sermons that you hear in modern Christianity and you listen to the sermon and\u00a0 you say great sermon, wrong passage.\u00a0 When people get in Genesis 1:2 and they start going on and on about how we can grieve the Holy Spirit and how the Holy Spirit has feelings and we injure\u00a0 the Holy Spirit when we sin, you sit there and you say amen, amen, amen, I agree with that, I just wish he\u2019d use Ephesians 4:30 because that\u2019s not what Genesis 1:2 is talking about.\u00a0 So it doesn\u2019t mean the Spirit is grieving here; the Spirit is moving in anticipation of what God is about to do through the shaping and populating process.\n\nThe eighth argument that you find in the argument of replenish: remember what the King James Bible says, the King James Version?\u00a0 It says, [Genesis 1:28] \u201cAnd God blessed man and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, [and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves]\u201d and the King James Version, which I think is the 16th<\/sup> century translation, something like that, from Greek into Elizabethan English, throws in this word replenish which is a translation of the word mala<\/em>, \u201creplenish\u201d and Gap Theory people quote this all the time and they say the reason it says \u201cre<\/u>plenish\u201d is because God was fixing what got busted by Satan\u2019s fall after the end of verse 1, at the beginning of verse 2.\u00a0 And if God is not doing that then it wouldn\u2019t say replenish.\n\nWell what\u2019s my response to that?\u00a0 The King James translators, the King James is a good translation but it\u2019s a Bible translation, it\u2019s not infallible, it\u2019s not inspired by God, there\u2019s a lot of people out there that are King James only and they basically believe that the English translation known as the King James Version is just as infallible as the original manuscripts that the Scripture was written in.\u00a0 And our position here at Sugar Land Bible Church, we respect the King James translation but it\u2019s just like any other English translation, it\u2019s not infallible.\u00a0 Male'<\/em>\u00a0does not mean replenish; what it means when\u00a0 you look it up in what\u2019s called BDB, Brown, Driver, Briggs, a standard Hebrew lexicon, it just means to fill, to be full.\u00a0 It does not mean to refill and so confident are other English translators that the King James Version has this one wrong is there is not a single modern Bible English translation anywhere that says refill.\u00a0 In fact, it\u2019s interesting that in Genesis 1:22, the same exact word, male'<\/em>, a few verses earlier, in Genesis 1:22, \u201cGod blessed them, saying, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.\u201d\n\nIt\u2019s interesting that the King James translators just a few verses earlier did not translate that same word as refill; they put it as fill.\u00a0 So why did they put it as refill in chapter 1:28?\u00a0 Because chapter 1, verse 28 gives you the impression that God is renovating, filling again the earth that was destroyed through Lucifer\u2019s rebellion and fall.\u00a0 Well, the King James Version was written in Elizabethan English. What does the word \u201crefill\u201d mean in Elizabethan English?\u00a0 Does the r-e prefix in Elizabethan English always mean the same thing?\u00a0 Does it always mean \u201cagain.\u201d\u00a0 It does not mean that; what it means is intensity, not again, but intensity.\u00a0 For example, if I say \u201care you going to do some research,\u201d \u201care you\u201d prefix, does that necessarily mean that you\u2019re searching again?\u00a0 Not necessarily; research, r-e prefix doesn\u2019t mean\u00a0 you\u2019re doing the whole thing again; it means you\u2019re searching with intensity.\u00a0 Do you follow?\n\nSo research doesn\u2019t have to mean again the way the Gap Theory believes God is populating the earth again because there was a prior population that got destroyed.\u00a0 All it means is the intensity of God.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what the word meant in Elizabethan English and to some extent that\u2019s what the r-e prefix means today.\n\nThe Gap Theory also likes to rely on Isaiah 24:1.\u00a0 Isaiah 24:1 says, \u201cBehold, the Lord lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants.\u201d\u00a0 And I say there it is, right there in the Bible.\u00a0 The original earth was laid waste.\u00a0 Well who laid it waste?\u00a0 Satan\u2019s rebellion and God\u2019s initial judgment, when in reality if\u00a0 you study Isaiah 24:1 it has zero to deal with original creation.\u00a0 Isaiah 24:1 is not even referencing original creation.\u00a0\u00a0 You know what it\u2019s referencing?\u00a0 Future judgment.\u00a0 How do I know that?\u00a0 What\u2019s my three rules for Bible study?\u00a0 Context, context, context!\u00a0 What precedes Isaiah 24:1, what follows Isaiah 24:1.\n\nAnd when you look at the whole context what you\u2019re going to see is Isaiah 24:1 is not even referencing original creation.\u00a0 It has nothing to do with the creation days or what happened in the alleged gap or anything.\u00a0 It\u2019s talking about the in the previous verses, chapter 23, the destruction of Babylon and Tyre yet future.\u00a0 And in the subsequent verses it\u2019s talking about the discipline of Israel\u00a0 yet future.\u00a0 So you\u2019ll notice what\u2019s happening here is the theology that many, many people believe is being constructed through remote passages that have nothing to do with the context of original creation.\n\nThe tenth argument used by Gap theory folks is the idea of Satan\u2019s Eden.\u00a0 Notice Ezekiel 28:13, \u201cYou were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering:\u201d and they\u2019ll say you know what?\u00a0 This Eden here doesn\u2019t sound a lot like the Eden I know of in Genesis 2, so this must be a Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 Eden., that Satan was originally in that got marred because of Satan\u2019s rebellion.\u00a0 So Gap theory is sort of tricky because you\u2019ve got two floods and\u00a0 you\u2019ve got two Eden\u2019s.\u00a0 Gap theory Eden kind of looks like this; the Garden of Eden that you read about in Genesis 2 is not the original Eden, it\u2019s a garden built on the ruins of the former garden that was destroyed through Satan\u2019s rebellion and then the renovation project God put the Eden that we know about on top of the prior Eden.\n\nAnd so the question becomes this has to be true because Ezekiel is describing Satan in Eden and that Eden sure reads differently than the Eden we know about in Genesis 2.\u00a0 Well the problem with that is I don\u2019t think Satan in Ezekiel 28 is in an earthly garden.\u00a0 I think he is in heaven described with the term Eden which is not a technical word, Eden means the presence of God.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t always have to mean the same exact spot on planet earth because rarely are words technical words.\u00a0 This Eden that we\u2019re talking about here is the presence of God in heaven and it\u2019s different than the presence of God in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.\u00a0 I think that because Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28:16 of the fall of Satan says, \u201cHow you have fallen from\u201d where, \u201cheaven, you\u2019ve been cut down\u201d where? \u201cto earth.\u00a0 The fall of Satan was not in some mineral garden, earthly garden, prior garden, it was the paradise of God called Eden as Satan was thrown from heaven to earth.\n\nAnd I think that because the Eden that\u2019s described in Ezekiel 28 is adorned with precious stones.\u00a0 In fact, it even talks about those stones as \u201cstones of fire,\u201d verse 14 I think it is, verse 16, \u201cstones of fire.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0I don\u2019t necessarily think that is talking about an earthly garden because when you get into the description of the Holy City.\u00a0 By the way, where is that Holy City?\u00a0 It\u2019s in heaven.\u00a0 Is it not described with many precious stones?\u00a0 The Holy City of Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God having the glory of God her brilliance was like very costly stones as a stone of crystal jasper.\u00a0 Those are the stones that are being described there in Ezekiel 28.\u00a0 Satan\u2019s heavenly fall not Satan in a mineral garden or a different kind of garden on the earth that got marred.\n\nAnyway, I apologize for going long; don\u2019t worry, there\u2019ll be plenty of time for Q and A and I\u2019m just hoping to finish up a couple of more points next time.\u00a0 Let\u2019s pray.\u00a0 Father, we\u2019re grateful for Your Word, Your Truth, help us to be rightly dividers of Your Word as we\u2019re taking a look at this subject of the Gap Theory, trying to determine if it\u2019s a biblical concept.\u00a0 We\u2019ll be careful to give You all the praise and the glory.\u00a0 We ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name, and God\u2019s people said\u2026. Amen!","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t