Because of the accepted teachings of evolution, many Christians have
tried to place a gap of indeterminate time between the first two verses
of Genesis 1. Genesis 1:1–2 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of
the waters.”
There are many different versions as to what supposedly happened during
this gap of time, but most versions of the gap theory place millions of years
of geologic time (including billions of animal fossils) between the Bible’s
first two verses. This version of the gap theory is sometimes called the ruin-reconstruction
theory.
Most ruin-reconstruction theorists have allowed the fallible theories of
secular scientists to determine the meaning of Scripture and have, therefore,
accepted the millions-of-years dates for the fossil record.
Some theorists also put the fall of Satan in this supposed period. But any
rebellion of Satan during this gap of time contradicts God’s description of His
completed creation on Day 6 as all being “very good” (Genesis 1:31).
All versions of the gap theory impose outside ideas on Scripture and thus
open the door for further compromise.
Where Did the Gap Theory Come From?
Christians have made many attempts over the years to harmonize the
Genesis account of creation with accepted geology and its teaching of billions
of years for the age of the earth. Examples of such attempts include the views
of theistic evolution, progressive creation, and the gap theory.
This idea of the gap theory can be traced back to the rather obscure
writings of the Dutchman Episcopius (1583–1643), but it was first recorded
from one of the lectures of Thomas Chalmers.1 Chalmers (1780–1847) was a notable Scottish theologian and the first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, and he was perhaps the man most responsible
for the gap theory.2 Rev. William Buckland, a geologist, also did much to
popularize the idea.
Although Chalmers’s writings give very little information about the gap
theory,3 many of the details are obtained from other writers, such as the nineteenth
century geologist Hugh Miller, who quoted from Chalmers’s lectures
on the subject.4
The most notably influential nineteenth century writer to popularize this
view was G. H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages,5 first published in
1884. Numerous editions of this work were published, the 15th edition appearing
in 1942.6
The 20th-century writer who published the most academic defense of the
gap theory was Arthur C. Custance in his work Without Form and Void.7
Bible study aids such as the Scofield Reference Bible, Dake’s Annotated
Reference Bible, and The Newberry Reference Bible also include the gap
theory and have influenced many to accept this teaching. The basic reason
for developing and promoting this view can be seen from the following very telling
quotes:
Scofield Study Bible: “Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no
conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.”8
Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible: “When men finally agree on the age
of the earth, then place the many years (over the historical 6,000) between
Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there will be no conflict between the Book
of Genesis and science.”9
These quotes are typical of the many compromise positions—accepting so-called “science”10 and its long ages for the earth, and incorporating them
into Scripture.
A Testimony of Struggle
G. H. Pember’s struggle with long geologic ages, recounted in Earth’s
Earliest Ages, has been the struggle of many Christians ever since the idea
of millions of years for the fossil record became popular in the early nineteenth
century. Many respected Christian leaders of today wrestle with this
same issue.
Reading Pember’s struggle helps us understand the implications of the
gap theory. Pember, like today’s conservative Christians, defended the authority
of Scripture. He was adamant that one had to start from Scripture
alone and not bring preconceived ideas to Scripture. He boldly chastened
people who came to the Bible “filled with myths, philosophies, and prejudices,
which they could not altogether throw off, but retained, in part at least,
and mingled—quite unwillingly, perhaps—with the truth of God” (p. 5).
He describes how the church is weakened when man’s philosophies are used
to interpret God’s Word: “For, by skillfully blending their own systems with
the truths of Scripture, they so bewildered the minds of the multitude that
but few retained the power of distinguishing the revelation of God from the
craftily interwoven teachings of men” (p. 7). He also said, “And the result is
that inconsistent and unsound interpretations have been handed down from
generation to generation, and received as if they were integral parts of the
Scriptures themselves; while any texts which seemed violently opposed were
allegorized, spiritualized, or explained away, till they ceased to be troublesome,
or perchance, were even made subservient” (p. 8).
He then warns Christians, “For, if we be observant and honest, we must often
ourselves feel the difficulty of approaching the sacred writings without bias, seeing
that we bring with us a number of stereotyped ideas, which we have received as
absolutely certain, and never think of testing, but only seek to confirm” (p. 8).
He did not want to question Scripture . . . but he did not question the long ages, either.
What happened to Pember should warn us that no matter how great a theologian
we may be or how respected and knowledgeable a Christian leader, we,
as finite, sinful human beings, cannot easily empty ourselves of preconceived ideas. Pember did exactly what he preached against, without realizing it. Such
is the ingrained nature of the long-ages issue. He did not want to question
Scripture (he accepted the six literal days of creation), but he did not question
the long ages, either. So Pember struggled with what to do. Many of today’s respected
Christian leaders show the same struggle in their commentaries as they
then capitulate to progressive creation or even theistic evolution.11
Pember said, “For, as the fossil remains clearly show not only were disease
and death—inseparable companions of sin—then prevalent among the living
creatures of the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter.” He, therefore, recognized
that a fossil record of death, decay, and disease before sin was totally inconsistent
with the Bible’s teaching. And he understood that there could be no
carnivores before sin: “On the Sixth Day God pronounced every thing which
He had made to be very good, a declaration which would seem altogether
inconsistent with the present condition of the animal as well as the vegetable
kingdom. Again: He gave the green herb alone for food ‘to every beast of the
field, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the
earth.’ There were, therefore, no carnivora in the sinless world” (p. 35).
Pember taught from Isaiah that the earth will be restored to what it was
like at first—no more death, disease, or carnivorous activity. However, because
he had accepted the long ages for the fossil record, what was he to do with
all this death, disease, and destruction in the record? He responded, “Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show
evident tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged
to another world, and have a sin-stained history of their own” (p. 35).
Thus, in trying to reconcile the long ages with Scripture, Pember justified
the gap theory by saying, “There is room for any length of time between
the first and second verses of the Bible. And again, since we have no inspired
account of geological formations, we are at liberty to believe that they were
developed just in the order which we find them. The whole process took place
in pre-Adamite times, in connection, perhaps, with another race of beings,
and, consequently, does not at present concern us” (p. 28).
With this background, let us consider this gap theory in detail. Basically,
this theory incorporates three strands of thought:
- A literal view of Genesis.
- Belief in an extremely long but unidentified age for the earth.
- An obligation to fit the origin of most of the geologic strata and other
geologic evidence between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. (Gap theorists oppose
evolution but believe in an ancient origin of the universe.)
There are many variations of the gap theory. According to the author
Weston Fields, the theory can be summarized as follows, “In the far distant
dateless past, God created a perfect heaven and perfect earth. Satan was ruler
of the earth which was peopled by a race of ‘men’ without any souls. Eventually,
Satan, who dwelled in a garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezekiel 28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isaiah 14). Because of Satan’s fall, sin entered the universe and brought on the earth God’s judgment in the form of a flood (indicated by the water of 1:2), and then a global ice age when
the light and heat from the sun were somehow removed. All the plant, animal,
and human fossils upon the earth today date from this ‘Lucifer’s flood’
and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals, and fossils
living upon the earth today.”12
Some versions of the gap theory state that the fossil record (geologic column)
formed over millions of years, and then God destroyed the earth with a
catastrophe (i.e., Lucifer’s flood) that left it “without form and void.”
Western Bible commentaries written before the eithteenth century (before
the belief in a long age for the earth became popular) knew nothing of any
gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Certainly some commentaries proposed
intervals of various lengths of time for reasons relating to Satan’s fall,13 but
none proposed a ruin-reconstruction situation or a pre-Adamite world. In the
nineteenth century, it became popular to believe that the geological changes
occurred slowly and roughly at the present rate (uniformitarianism14).
With increased acceptance of uniformitarianism, many theologians urged reinterpretation of Genesis (with ideas such as day-age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, and days-of-revelation).
Problems with the Gap Theory
Believing in the gap theory presents a number of problems and inconsistencies,
especially for a Christian.
-
It is inconsistent with God creating everything
in six days, as Scripture states.Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the
Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea,
and all that is in them, and rested the seventh
day. Therefore the Lord blessed the
Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Thus the
creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis
1:1) and the sea and all that is in them
(the rest of the creation) was completed in
six days.15 Is there any time for a gap? -
It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.
Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered
the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because
all sinned.” From this we understand that there could not have been human
sin or death before Adam. The Bible teaches in 1 Corinthians 15 that Adam
was the first man, and as a result of his rebellion (sin), death and corruption
(disease, bloodshed, and suffering) entered the universe. Before Adam sinned,
there could not have been any animal (nephesh16) or human death. Note also
that there could not have been a race of men before Adam that died in Lucifer’s
flood because 1 Corinthians 15:45 tells us that Adam was the first man.Genesis 1:29–30 teaches us that animals and man were originally created
to eat plants, which is consistent with God’s description of His creation
as “very good.” But how could a fossil record, which gives evidence
of disease, violence, death, and decay (fossils have been found of animals apparently fighting and certainly eating each other), be described as “very
good”? For this to be true, the death of billions of animals (and many humans)
as seen in the fossil record must have occurred after Adam’s sin. The
historical event of the global Flood, recorded in Genesis, explains the presence
of huge numbers of dead animals buried in rock layers, laid down by
water all over the earth.Romans 8:22 teaches that “the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.” Clearly the whole of creation was, and is, subject to decay
and corruption because of sin. When gap theorists believe that disease,
decay, and death existed before Adam sinned, they ignore that this contradicts
the teaching of Scripture.17The version of the gap theory that puts Satan’s fall at the end of the
geological ages, just before the supposed Lucifer’s flood that destroyed all pre-Adamic life, has a further problem—the death and suffering recorded in the
fossils must have been God’s fault. Since it happened before Satan’s fall, Satan
and sin cannot be blamed for it.18 -
The gap theory is logically inconsistent because it explains away what it is
supposed to accommodate—supposed evidence for an old earth.Gap theorists accept that the earth is very old—a belief based on geologic
evidence interpreted with the assumption that the present is the key to the
past. This assumption implies that in the past sediments containing fossils
formed at basically the same rate as they do today. This process is also used
by most geologists and biologists to justify belief that the geologic column
represents billions of years of earth history. This geologic column has become
the showcase of evolution because the fossils are claimed to show ascent from
simple to complex life-forms.This places gap theorists in a dilemma. Committed to literal creation
because of their acceptance of a literal view of Genesis, they cannot accept
the conclusions of evolution based on the geologic column. Nor can they accept
that the days in the Genesis record correspond to geologic periods. So
they propose that God reshaped the earth and re-created all life in six literal
days after Lucifer’s flood (which produced the fossils); hence the name “ruin-reconstruction.”
Satan’s sin supposedly caused this flood, and the resulting judgment upon that sin reduced the previous world to a state of being “without form and void.”While the gap theorist may think Lucifer’s flood solves the problem of
life before God’s creation recorded in Genesis 1:2 and following, it actually
removes the reason for the theory in the first place. If all, or most, of the sediments
and fossils were produced quickly in one massive worldwide Lucifer’s
flood, then the main evidence that the earth is extremely old no longer exists,
because the age of the earth is based on the assumed slow formation of earth’s
sediments.Also, if the world was reduced to a shapeless, chaotic mess, as gap theorists
propose, how could a reasonably ordered assemblage of fossils and sediments
remain as evidence? Surely with such chaos the fossil record would
have been severely disrupted, if not entirely destroyed. This argument also
applies to those who say the fossil record formed over hundreds of millions
of years before this so-called Lucifer’s flood, which would have severely rearranged
things. -
The gap theory does away with the evidence for the historical event of the
global Flood.If the fossil record was formed by Lucifer’s flood, then what did the global
Flood of Noah’s day do? On this point the gap theorist is forced to conclude
that the global Flood must have left virtually no trace. To be consistent,
the gap theorist would also have to defend that the global Flood was a local
event. Custance, one of the major proponents of the gap theory, did just that,
and he even published a paper defending a local flood.19Genesis, however, depicts
the global Flood as a judgment
for man’s sin (Genesis 6). Water
flooded the earth for over a
year (Genesis 6:17, 7:19–24)
and only eight people, along
with two of every kind (and
seven of some) of air-breathing,
land-dwelling animal survived
(Genesis 7:23). It is more consistent with the whole
framework of Scripture to
attribute most fossils to the
global Flood of Noah’s day
rather than to resort to a
strained interpretation of the
fall of Satan20 and a totally
speculative catastrophe that
contributes nothing to biblical
understanding or to science.Sadly, in relegating the
fossil record to the supposed gap, gappists have removed the evidence of
God’s judgment in the Flood, which is the basis for God’s warning of judgment
to come (2 Peter 3:2–14). - The gap theorist ignores the evidence for a young earth.
The true gap theorist also ignores evidence consistent with an earth fewer
than 10,000 years of age. There is much evidence for this—the decay and
rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, the amount of salt in the oceans,
the wind-up of spiral galaxies, and much more.21 - The gap theory fails to accommodate standard uniformitarian geology
with its long ages.Today’s uniformitarian geologists allow for no worldwide flood of
any kind—the imaginary Lucifer’s flood or the historical Flood of Noah’s
day. They also recognize no break between the supposed former created world
and the current recreated world. - Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the gospel at its foundations.
By accepting an ancient age for the earth (based on the standard
uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column), gap theorists leave the
evolutionary system intact (which by their own assumptions they oppose).Even worse, they must also theorize that Romans 5:12 and Genesis 3:3 refer only to spiritual death. But this contradicts other scriptures, such as 1 Corinthians 15 and Genesis 3:22–23. These passages tell us that Adam’s
sin led to physical death, as well as spiritual death. In 1 Corinthians 15 the
death of the Last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ) is compared with the death
of the first Adam. Jesus suffered physical death for man’s sin, because Adam,
the first man, died physically because of sin.In cursing man with physical death, God also provided a way to redeem man through the person of His Son Jesus Christ, who suffered the curse of
death on the Cross for us. He tasted “death for everyone” according to Hebrews 2:9. He took the penalty that should rightly have been ours at the
hands of the Righteous Judge, and bore it in His own body on the Cross. Jesus
Christ tasted death for all mankind, and He defeated death when He rose
from the grave three days later. Men can
be free from eternal death in hell if they
believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
They then are received back to God to
spend eternity with Him. That is the message
of Christianity.To believe there was death before Adam’s
sin destroys the basis of the Christian
message. The Bible states that man’s rebellious
actions led to death and the corruption
of the universe, but the gap theory
undermines the reason that man needs a
Savior.
A Closer Look at Genesis 1:1–2
The earliest available manuscript of Genesis 1:1–2 is found in the Greek
translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint (LXX), which was
prepared about 250–200 B.C. The LXX does not permit the reading of any
ruin-reconstruction scenario into these verses, as even Custance admitted. A
closer look at these verses reveals that the gap theory imposes an interpretation
upon Genesis 1:1–2 that is unnatural and grammatically unsound. Like many
attempts to harmonize the Bible with uniformitarian geology, the gap theory
involves a well-meant but misguided twisting of Scripture.
Below are the five major challenges to the gap theory in interpreting
Scripture. For a much fuller analysis, we recommend the book Unformed and
Unfilled by Weston Fields, published by Burgener Enterprises, 1997.
Creating and Making (Hebrew: Bara and Asah)
It is generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word bara, used with “God”
as its subject, means “to create”—in the sense of the production of something
which did not exist before.
However, according to Exodus 20:11, God “made” (asah) the heavens
and the earth and everything in them in six days. If God made everything in
six days, then there is clearly no room for a gap. To avoid this clear scriptural
testimony against any gap, gap theorists have alleged that asah does not mean
“to create,” but “to form” or even “re-form.” They claim that Exodus 20:11 refers
not to six days of creation but to six days of re-forming a ruined world.
Is there such a difference between bara and asah in biblical usage? A number
of verses show that, while asah may mean “to do” or “to make,” it can
also mean “to create,” which is the same as bara. For example, Nehemiah 9:6
states that God made (asah) “heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their
host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them.” This
reference is obviously to the original ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation, but
the word asah is used. (We may safely assume that no gappist will want to
say that Nehemiah 9:6 refers to the supposed reconstruction, because if the
passage did, the gappist would have to include the geological strata in the
reconstruction, thereby depriving the whole theory of any power to explain
away the fossil record.)
The fact is that the words bara and asah are often used interchangeably
in the Old Testament; indeed, in some places they are used in synonymous
parallelism (e.g., Genesis 1:26–27, 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20, 43:7).
Applying this conclusion to Exodus 20:11, 31:17, and Nehemiah 9:6,
we see that Scripture teaches that God created the universe (everything) in six
days, as outlined in Genesis 1.
The Grammar of Genesis 1:1–2
Many adherents of the gap theory claim that the grammar of Genesis
1:1–2 allows, and even requires, a time-gap between the events in verse 1
and the events in verse 2. Into this gap—believed by many to be billions
of years—they want to place all the major geological phenomena that have
shaped the world.
This is an unnatural interpretation, not suggested by the plain meaning
of the text. The most straightforward reading of the verses sees verse 1 as a
subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three circumstantial clauses (i.e., three statements that further describe the circumstances introduced by
the principal clause in verse 1).
This conclusion is reinforced by the grammarian Gesenius. He says that
the Hebrew conjunction waw, meaning “and” at the beginning of verse 2, is
a “waw copulative,” which compares with the old English expression “to wit.”
This grammatical connection between verses 1 and 2 thus rules out the gap
theory. Verse 2 is in fact a description of the state of the originally created
earth: “And the earth was without form and void” (Genesis 1:2a).22
“Was” or “Became”?
Gappists translate “the earth was without form and void” to be “the
earth became (or, had become) without form and void.” At stake is the translation
of the Hebrew word hayetah (a form of the Hebrew verb, hayah, meaning
“to be”).
Custance, a supporter of the gap theory, claims that out of 1,320 occurrences
of the verb hayah in the Old Testament, only 24 can certainly be
said to bear the meaning “to be.” He concludes that in Genesis 1:2 hayetah
must mean “became” and not simply “was.”
However, we must note
that the meaning of a word is
controlled by its context, and
that verse 2 is circumstantial
to verse 1. Thus “was” is the
most natural and appropriate
translation for hayetah. It is
rendered this way in most
English versions (as well as in the
LXX). Furthermore, in Genesis
1:2 hayetah is not followed by
the preposition le, which would
have removed any ambiguity in
the Hebrew and required the
translation “became.”
Tohu and Bohu
The words tohu and bohu, usually translated “formless and void,” are used
in Genesis 1:2. They imply that the original universe was created unformed
and unfilled and was, during six days, formed and filled by God’s creative
actions.
Gappists claim that these words imply a process of judgmental destruction
and that they indicate a sinful, and therefore not an original, state of the
earth. However, this brings interpretations from other parts of the Old Testament
with very different contexts (namely, Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23)
and imports them into Genesis 1.
Tohu and bohu appear together only in the three above-mentioned places
in the Old Testament. However, tohu appears alone in a number of other
places and in all cases simply means “formless.” The word itself does not tell us
about the cause of formlessness; this has to be gleaned from the context. Isaiah 45:18 (often quoted by gappists) is rendered in the KJV “he created it not in
vain [tohu], he formed it to be inhabited.” In the context, Isaiah is speaking
about Israel, God’s people, and His grace in restoring them. He did not
choose His people in order to destroy them, but to be their God and for them
to be His people. Isaiah draws an analogy with God’s purpose in creation: He
did not create the world for it to be empty. No, He created it to be formed
and filled, a suitable abode for
His creation. Gappists miss
the point altogether when they
argue that because Isaiah says
God did not create the world
tohu, it must have become
tohu at some later time. Isaiah
45:18 is about God’s purpose in
creating, not about the original
state of the creation.
Though the expression
“tohu and bohu” in Isaiah 34:11
and Jeremiah 4:23 speaks of a
formlessness and emptiness resulting
from divine judgment
for sin, this meaning is not
implicit in the expression itself but is gained from the particular contexts in which it occurs. It is not valid
therefore to infer that same meaning from Genesis 1:2, where the context
does not suggest any judgment. As an analogy, we might think of a word
like “blank” in reference to a computer screen. It can be blank because nothing
has been typed on the keyboard, or it can be blank because the screen
has been erased. The word “blank” does not suggest, in itself, the reason why
the screen is blank. Likewise with “formless and void”—the earth began
that way simply because it was not yet formed and filled, or it was that way
because of judgment.
Theologians call the form of use of tohu and/or bohu in Isaiah 34:11 and
Jeremiah 4:23 a “verbal allusion.” These passages on judgment allude to the
formless and empty earth at the beginning of creation to suggest the extent
of God’s judgment to come. God’s judgment will be so complete that the
result will be like the earth before it was formed and filled—formless and
empty. This does not imply that the state of the creation in Genesis 1:2 was
arrived at by some sort of judgment or destruction as imagined by gappists.
As theologian Robert Chisholm Jr. wrote, “By the way, allusion only works
one way. It is unwarranted to assume that Jeremiah’s use of the phrase in a
context of judgment implies some sort of judgment in the context of Genesis
1:2. Jeremiah is not interpreting the meaning of Genesis 1:2.”23
“Replenish”
Many gappists have
used the word “replenish”
in the KJV translation of
Genesis 1:28 to justify
the gap theory on the basis
that this word means
“refill.” Thus, they claim
that God told Adam and
Eve to refill the earth, implying
it was once before
filled with people (the
pre-Adamites). However, this is wrong. The Hebrew word translated “replenish,” male,24 simply
means “fill” (or “fulfill” or “be filled”).
The English word “replenish” meant “fill” from the thirteenth to the seventeenth
centuries; then it changed to mean “refill.” When the KJV was published
in 1611, the translators used the English word “replenish,” which at
that time meant only “fill,” not “refill.”25
The Straightforward Meaning of Genesis 1:1–2
The gap (or ruin-reconstruction) theory is based on a very tenuous
interpretation of Scripture.
The simple, straightforward meaning of Genesis 1:1–2 is that, when God
created the earth at the beginning, it was initially formless, empty, and dark,
and God’s Spirit was there above the waters. It was through His creative energy
that the world was then progressively formed and filled during the six
days of creation.
Consider the analogy of a potter making a vase. The first thing he does
is gather a ball of clay. What he has is good, but it is unformed. Next, he
shapes it into a vase, using his potter’s wheel. Now the ball of clay is no longer
formless. He then dries it, applies glaze, and fires it. Now it is ready to be
filled—with flowers and water. At no time could one of the stages be considered
evil or bad. It was just unfinished—unformed and unfilled. When the
vase was finally formed and filled, it could be described as “very good.”
Warning
Many sincere Christians
have invented reinterpretations
of Scripture to avoid
intellectual conflicts with
popular scientific ideas. The
gap theory was one such reinterpretation
designed to fit in
with scientific concepts that
arose in the early 1800s and
are still popular today.
In reality, though, the gap theory was an effective anesthetic that put the
church to sleep for over 100 years. When the children who learned this compromise
position went on to higher education, they were shocked to discover
that this theory explained nothing. Many of them then accepted the only
remaining “respectable” theory—evolution—which went hand-in-hand with
millions of years. The results were usually disastrous for their faith.
Today, other compromise positions, such as progressive creation or
theistic evolution, have mostly replaced the gap theory.26 The gappists,
by attempting to maintain a literal Genesis but adhering to the long ages
(millions of years), opened the door for greater compromise in the next
generation—the reinterpretation of the days, God using evolution, etc.
But whether it is the gap theory, day-age/progressive creation, or theistic
evolution, the results are the same. These positions may be acceptable in some
churches, but the learned in the secular world will, with some justification,
mock those who hold them because they see the inconsistencies.
In Martin Luther’s day the church compromised what the Bible clearly
taught, and he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the
church to call them back to the
authority of God’s Word. In
the same way, the church today
has, by and large, neglected
what the Bible clearly says in
Genesis 1–11. It’s time to call
the church back to the authority
of God’s Word beginning
with Genesis.
SourceThis article originally appeared on answersingenesis.org
Views: 25
Discover more from Emmanuel Baptist Church
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.