Light Unto My Path

Bible Studies for the Journey

Old Testament Studies

IS THERE A BRIDGE FOR THE GAP THEORY?

By Robert C. Crowder, Pentateuch, November 1981

Like most of you, I have certain views concerning biblical interpretations due to a variety of reasons.  My church, trusted teachers and printed material have helped to shape my thoughts.  In the process of time I have taught these views concerning the creation, flood and early Jewish history to name a few.   Not asking any real questions as to the authenticity or accuracy of the application of Gods word, but readily accepting their viewpoint.

But there comes a time when your foundational theologies are criticized you must then fall back and take inventory on "why do I believe what I do.  Is it only because that is what our spiritual fathers have taught us?” approach.

One of the many theological theories that I was first introduced to was the  so-called Gap Theory.  From my conservative training and from my creationist views, I was taught that this theory was definitely wrong and I took that at face value after looking at a few passages.   I heard many preachers give it a negative reaction therefore I did not believe the theory had validity.  And having full confidence in my beliefs, I happily disregarded it and went on my way, not knowing why, but certainly not having any faith in the Gap Theory.

Then a part of my theological world was tumbled as I entered a local Bible College.  My first semester found me in a Bible History class on the Pentateuch.  As the professor described the course, he made mention of the “great gulf between the first and second verses in Genesis.”  He went on to say that he firmly believed in the Gap Theory.  Well that light a fire in me and I decided right then that I would begin writing my term paper on the Gap Theory.

There really were two reasons for that decision; (1) Because the theory as stated was such a convenient way for theology and science to come to grips with each other, and (2) to find out what God had to say to me about applying the theory to my life.  I knew that the best student is the teacher and I would relish really finding out for myself.  I also knew that prejudices would hinder the Holy Spirit teaching me so I had to be free of preconceived notions.  I scoured the local libraries both at school and others in an attempt to obtain as much information as I could both pro and con on the Gap Theory or Ruin and Reconstruction Theory as it is also called.  The following study is a culmination of this research.

The Christian who desires to accommodate the geologic-age system in his theology must somehow fit them into the creation record of Genesis 1.  Since the first chapter of Genesis covers the creation of all forms of life, including man, it is obvious that the geologic ages could not have occurred after the creation week.  The ages of geology did not occur during the creation week.  The only other possibility, if they occurred at all is that they took place before the creation week.  This latter theory is popularly known as the "gap theory", since it places the geologic ages in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

History of the Gap Theory 

"Theologians rested content with creation at 4000 B.C., till the geological studies disturbed this position."1  Although traces of the theory can be traced back in Christian writings as early as the 4th century, A.D., it was not until the ministries of Dr. Thomas Chalmers, Scottish scholar, and George H. Pember (1876) that the theory really caught on.  And more recently by the Canadian scientist, Arthur C. Custance with his "Doorway Papers."

"The gap theory was adopted by Scofield in his 1917 Reference Bible and so accumulated to itself all the veneration and publicity of that edition of the Bible.  Scofield ranked Pember over Dana and Dawson, the two greatest geologists of the nineteenth century in North America."2 

These last two dates are significant, for by 1880 Darwin's theory of evolution as propounded in his book "The Origin of the Species" was universally accepted by the scientific world.  The theory states that the world must be many millions of years old as indicated by the vast fossil record and the claims of uniformitarian geology.  "But as the surface of the earth was studied and deciphered it became apparent that a flood of one year's duration could not account for the phenomena of the rocks.  Geologists had come to the conclusion that these formations occupied thousands if not millions of years for their construction.  What the geologists needed was time.  How could time be found in the Genesis account?"3 

An answer was found---uncounted millions of years could be conveniently tucked into that bottomless hole which was thought to exist between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Thus the Christian theologian to appease the non-Christian evolutionist may view the Gap Theory in part as an attempt! 

In his book, Gleanings in Genesis, Pink says, ".but if the surmises of geologists could be conclusively established there would be no conflict at all between the findings of science and the teaching of Scripture.  The unknown interval between the first two verses of Genesis 1, is wide enough to embrace all the prehistoric ages which may have elapsed: but all that took place from Genesis 1:3 onwards transpired less than six thousand years ago.  The faith of the Christian rests not in the wisdom of man, or does it stand in any need of buttressing from scientific savants.4

"As a result the gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout Fundamentalism, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles.  In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings."5

The Theory 

The theory runs something like this: God created a perfect world as recorded in Genesis 1:1.  This world was turned over to Lucifer who conducted the Temple worship of God located in a mineral Garden of Eden.  The exalted condition of Lucifer was too much for him and in seeking to exalt himself as a god, he and those who consorted with him fell and judgment was passed on them and the earth.  For countless millions of years the earth was left alone and during these years the various geological formations took place.  Some argue that the ugliness of the dinosaurs and the great bed of fossils emerging as vast cemeteries of the past indicate that a judgment for sin and had been passed on the earth.  "Somewhere around 4000 B.C.  God reconditioned the earth in six literal twenty-four hour days.  Genesis 1 contains an original creation, a judgment and ruination, and then a recreation.

This theory harmonizes the book of Genesis and the science of geology on the grounds of granting a vast period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 for all the geological events to take place.  Scofield triumphantly announces, "Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with Genesis cosmogony remains.6

"Pember argues that the Hebrew word "asah" does not refer to creation but to recreation or making over.  The original creation was created; but the things of the six days are made, not created.7  Pember writes, "..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 the geological formations we are at liberty to believe they were developed in the order we find them."8

"In that Jeremiah 4:23-26 refers to this ruin we must believe that there were men in the original creation of Genesis 1:1 and cities too, for Jeremiah speaks of the broken-down condition of the cities.  Pember is forced to adopt a pre-Adamite view of man.  With reference to fossils, Pember believes that they reveal disease, death, and ferocity--all tokens of sins.

Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident token of disease, death and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world, and have a sin-stained history of their own.”9  Pember thinks, "The earth may have swallowed them up like the sons of Korah in Numbers 16.10

The Arguments for the Gap Theory

The conventional arguments that are presented as evidence in favor of the Gap Theory as a means of reconciling geologic science and the Bible record are as follows: 11

1) The verb translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 (Heb. Hayetha) can just as well be translated "became."  Many Hebrew scholars agree that Genesis 1:2 is best translated, "And the earth became an empty waste and ruin." What was perfect became ruined.

2) Two verses that describe events to come may also be assigned an application to the past: "Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it a waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof" (Isaiah 24:1).  "I beheld the earth, and, it was (i.e. became) without form and void: and the heavens, and they had no light" (Jeremiah 4:23).  The context of those passages speaks clearly of judgment and destruction.  Furthermore, the word "tohu" by itself frequently has evil connotation.  Isaiah 45:18 in revised versions declare that God created the earth not a waste.  This verse may be interpreted to teach the fact of an original perfect creation and to assume a later catastrophe that made the earth without form and void.

3) There seems to be a definite distinction in the first chapter of Genesis between "created" and "made", thus permitting us to assume that many of the things mentioned in this chapter were simply recreated.

4) In Genesis 1:28 man is instructed to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The English word "replenish" means to fill again or to stock anew.  Although the Hebrew word make does not necessarily imply the thought of repetition, the fact remains that "replenish" is deemed a suitable translation.

5) It is inconceivable that the hosts of heaven would have rejoiced at the foundation of the earthly world and would have shouted for joy, full of worship and admiration for God's creative glory, if this creation had at the first been formless and empty, desolate and chaotic.  (Job 38:4-7)

The Arguments against the Gap Theory

The arguments will be taken in the same order as above.  Argument #1: "The word may be translated became." Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, the recognized textbook on the Hebrew language opposes it.

"A student writing a master's thesis on "Fundamental Christianity and Evolution" polled twenty leading Hebrew scholars in the united States, asking them if there were any exegetical evidences of a gap interpretation of Genesis 1:2.  They unanimously replied in the negative."12

The sentence structure suggests that the earth's condition in verse 2 is just as God created it in verse 1, for we have an exact grammatical parallel in Jonah 3:3 ("Jonah arose and went into Nineveh...Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city").  Obviously Nineveh did not become a great city after Jonah entered it.13

In the following references we find the same grammatical construction and the same verb as in Genesis 1:2 and in each case the verb must be translated "was."  (Genesis 41 56; Exodus 1:5 and Judges 9:51)

The Hebrew verb hayetha is found 264 times in the Pentateuch, and of these, in 258 instances the word is translated "was." It is true that there are six instances where the verb is translated "became" (Gen. 3:22; 19:26; 21:20; Exodus 7:19; 8:17; 9:10)  In each of these cases; however, the context clearly shows that a change of state has occurred.  But Genesis 1:2 lacks this clear demand that a change has taken place.

B. Ramm states, "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 beautiful world."14  Flack agrees and says "God created the earth with the capacities and potentialities of light and life, but at the period in question it was as yet undeveloped...The universe did not become empty and desolate subsequent to its creation…but...it was empty awaiting the further creative work of God.15

Argument #2: "Waste and void picture judgment and destruction."  The word tohu does not always refer to something evil.  It may mean empty space--God "stretching out the north over empty space (tohu), and hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7 ASV) In some passages the word refers to the wilderness or desert which is conspicuous for its absence of life (Deuteronomy 32:10; Job 6:18; 12:24; Psalms 107:40), but in most of the places where tohu appears in Isaiah it is paralleled with such words as "nothing" and "nought."

Isaiah 45:18 states "the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste (tohu), that formed it to be inhabited." The exponents of the Gap Theory claim that the tohu condition of the earth in Genesis 1:2 could not have been its original condition, because Isaiah 45:18 says it was not created a tohu.  Consequently, God must have originally created an earth replete with living things, and later destroyed it, causing it to become tohu.

The above interpretation overlooks the significance of the final phrase in the verse: "formed it to be inhabited." The real point of the passage seems to be that God did not ultimately intend that the world should be devoid of life, but rather that it should be filled with living things.  The verse thus speaks of God's ultimate purpose in creation, and the contact in this verse between tohu and "inhabited" shows clearly that tohu means empty and uninhabited, rather than judged, destroyed, or chaotic.

Bohu has essentially the same meaning as tohu, namely, empty, void, and waste.  The earth therefore is described as a waste, but not in the sense of being disordered or jumbled, but simply that it was not habitable, not ready for man.

"One of our severest criticisms of Catholic exegesis is their procedure of hanging so much on isolated verses.

Isaiah 45:18 settles nothing in the matter, for God is not through creating till the end of the six days.  When God finished it was a cosmos, not a chaos, so an appeal to Isaiah 45:18 is improper.16

Herschel H. Hobbs, had this to say, "However, to me this seems a forced interpretation.  To begin with, Isaiah 45:18 refers to God's ultimate purpose in creation.  I agree with Basil F. C. Atkinson (pg 12).  Speaking about fixing our attention upon the earth, he says, 'It is the first step in a process of continuous narrowing.  The process of God becomes concentrated, as we read the Bible, upon a single nation, then upon a single family in it, and finally upon a lonely sublime figure hanging in anguish on Calvary's cross.  There the purpose widens again step by step, till it finally embraces a whole creation, a new heaven and a new earth."17

Argument #3: "There is a distinction between the verbs 'created' (bara) and 'made' (asah)." The second note in the Scofield Reference states: "but three creative acts of God are recorded in this chapter, the heavens and the earth, v.2, animal life v.21, human life vs. 26, 27."

The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages.”

Refute: The two verbs are used synonymously throughout the chapter.  For instance, God "created" (bara) the great sea-monsters (vs. 21) and He "made (asah) the beasts of the field.  (v. 25)  Compare Genesis 1:26 with 1:27: "Let us make man in our image" and "So God created man in his own image."

Whitcomb summarizes all this by writing: "For the sake of variety and fullness of expression then, different verbs are used to convey the concept of supernatural creation.  The context makes it clear that these verbs are used synonymously throughout the chapter, so that not only animal life and human life, but also plant life and the heavenly bodies were created by God in their appropriate day."18

"Allis gives them a most interesting problem to struggle with.  Almost all gap theorists believe in pre-Adamite man, but of this man the Bible knows nothing.  Further, the gap theorists admit to the geologist’s vast periods of time, but demand the creation of man in one day.  He is then advocating twenty-four anthropology and limitless-time geology.19

Argument #4: "The word 'replenish the earth' (Genesis 1:28) implies a former emptying, or judgment."

Refute: "The verb in the Hebrew text (maleh) simply means to fill, with no suggestion of repetition.20

Argument #5: "It is inconceivable that the hosts of heaven could rejoice at the creation of something chaotic." (Job 38:7).

Refute: (by John Witcomb) In so far as the words "tohu wa-bohu" are concerned we must conclude that they simply describe the earth as not habitable.  There is no reason why God might not have pronounced the condition set forth by the first circumstantial clause of verse two as "good".

When God created the "heavens" at the beginning of the first day of creation week, He apparently created all the angelic beings (including the unfallen Satan), who were thus on hand to sing together and shout for joy at the creation of the earth.  (Job 38:7).

Tayler Lewis, in his book "Genesis", says ".it is too patently an artificial effort to reconcile Genesis and geology rather than an interpretation growing naturally out of the text; it makes the heavens of Genesis 1:1 different from the rest of the passage; and it breaks the connection between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 for which there is no justification in the text.21

Some of the very weighty objections to this theory from Henry M. Morris are briefly as follows: 

  1. It is explicitly contradicted by the explanatory clause of the fourth Commandment: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11) 
  2. The Bible teaches plainly that sin and death entered this earth only as a result of Adam's sin.  (See I Corinthians 15:21; Romans 8:20-22; Romans 5:12) This contradicts the theory that the fossil remains of millions of dead creatures, including manlike beings, date from before the creation of Adam and his subsequent fall.
  3. The "pre-Adamite" men which lived in the ages before the supposed catastrophe must have lived and died without a Saviour and God's first creation therefore must have been an utter failure, if this theory is true.
  4. No passage of Scripture anywhere plainly and unequivocally ~ teaches the ruin theory.  The theory has assumed the supposed ruin to be the result of Satan's sin in rebelling against God.  This rebellion, however, evidently occurred in Heaven and not on this planet.  Nowhere in Scripture is there any statement that Satan was associated with this planet before the creation of man.  According to Ezekiel 28:16, 17, he was only "cast to the earth," and "out of the mountain of God" after his rebellion and defeat in Heaven.  See also Luke 10:18.
  5. None of the standard translations of Genesis 1:2 renders the verse as: "The earth became waste and void" as the theory requires.
  6. Therefore, the fact that bara is used only three times in Genesis 1 (vv. 1, 21, and 27) certainly does not imply that the other creative acts, in which "made" or some similar expression is used, were really only acts of restoration.  For example, in Genesis 1:21, God "created" the fishes and birds: in 1:25 He "made" the animals and creeping things.  In verse 26, God speaks of "making man in His own image." The next verse states that God "created" man in his own image.  No scientific or exegetical ground exists for distinction between the two processes, except perhaps a matter of grammatical emphasis.  The materials that God used to “make” or “form” various things were materials that he had "created" (described in verse 1, probably).  The natural reading of the whole account surely conveys the understanding of real creation throughout, with no intimation that the actual story is one of reconstruction of a devastated world.  Finally, the summary verse (Genesis 2:3) clearly says that all of God's works, both of "creating" and "making", were completed with the six days, after which God "rested." 
  7. In the context of Isaiah 45:18 (which has nothing whatever to do with a supposed pre-Adamic catastrophe)  "in vain" is obviously the proper translation.  That is, God created the earth not without a purpose--to be forever empty and formless--but rather He formed it with the intent that it would be inhabited.

Dr. John Whitcomb23 has summarized the subject of the Gap Theory as follows: 

The differences between the Gap Theory and the traditional view of a comparatively recent creation of the earth within six literal days are quite profound.  In the first place, the Gap theory must redefine the "very good" of Genesis 1:31 ("God saw everything he had made and behold, it was very good"), for Adam would have been placed as a very late arrival in a world that had just been destroyed, so that he was literally walking upon a graveyard of billions of creatures (including dinosaurs) over which he would never exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26).  Furthermore, this "very good" world would already have become the domain of a fallen and wicked being that is described elsewhere in Scripture as the "god of this world." (II Corinthians 4:4)

Secondly, the Gap Theory assumes that carnivorous and other animals were living and dying not only millions of years before Adam, but even before the fall of Satan! But could death have prevailed in the animal kingdom in a sinless world? Does not the Bible indicate that the "groaning and travailing in pain" of the animal kingdom is a result of the Edenic Curse, which came after Adam's fall (Romans 8:20-22)? It was neither nature nor Satan, but man who was created to be the king of the earth (Psalms 8; Hebrews 2:5-8) and not until man deliberately rejected the known will of God did death make its first appearance on this planet (Romans 5:12) or did animals fall under the "bondage of corruption" (Romans 8:21) Thus the Gap theory seriously compromises the Biblical doctrine of man's original dominion and the doctrine of the Edenic Curse which a holy God inflicted upon the earth because of man's rebellion.

Thirdly, if, according to the Gap Theory, all the animals and plants of the "first world" were destroyed and fossilized, they could have had no genetic relation to the living things of the present world, in spite of the fact that the majority of them appear to be identical in form to modern types.  Likewise, those who place human fossils into this "gap" period are forced to the conclusion that such pre-Adamic "men" did not possess an eternal soul (because they obviously died before sin entered the world by Adam).  Fourth, the Gap Theory leaves us with no clear word from God concerning the "original perfect world" (which most advocates of this theory assume to have existed for many millions of years).  Thus, we would know nothing of the order of events in its creation, the arrangement of its features, or its history (which, we are told, could have constituted 99.9 percent of earth's history thus far) for instead of having the entire first chapter on this important subject, we have only the first verse! Are Christians to assume that before Genesis 1:2 we must look to uniformitarian and evolutionary geologists to fill in the blank? What does this do to Exodus 20:11, which states that within the six days (not before the first day), God "made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (not just plants, animals, and men)?

Finally, the Gap Theory tacitly assumes that Noah's Flood (to which Moses devotes three entire chapters in Genesis) was comparatively insignificant from the standpoint of its geologic and hydrodynamic effects, since all the major fossil-bearing formations were laid down by the supposed Flood of Genesis 1:2 (sometimes referred to as Lucifer's Flood).  Obviously, two universal floods separated by many centuries did not deposit the same fossils! Therefore, the Gap Theory almost requires that Noah's Flood be localized in its extent and effect in order to give full emphasis to a pre-Adamic catastrophe. (cf Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961, pp. 5-6) It is futile to argue that the Apostle Peter was referring to a catastrophe in Genesis 1:2 when he wrote that "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6) for he had just referred to Noah's Flood (II Peter 2:5) and would hardly be expected to refer to a different flood without explanation, especially since the only Flood the Lord Jesus Christ ever spoke of was Noah's Flood (cf Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:27)! Obviously, then, the Gap Theory is not simply a minor deviation from the traditional interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

It may be true that Moses shared the primitive mythological views of his contemporaries (as the critics teach), or that he anticipated modern science in many of his incidental statements (as conservative interpreters insist).  This may be, but how do we know? The only way we can answer this question is by directing our attention to the will of the writer.  After all, a text has to represent someone's meaning--if not the writer's, then the interpreter's.  Once the writer is banished as the determiner of the text's meaning, it becomes apparent that there is no adequate principle for judging the validity of an interpretation.

Due to the doctrine of inspiration (see 2 Tim 3:16-17), however, the interpreter of the Bible starts from the premise that God ultimately is the author of the early chapters of Genesis.  Hence, technically, it is the Holy Spirit's meaning that we must seek, not that of Moses.  The Holy Spirit chose to express Himself through Moses, using his personality, worldview, vocabulary, way of thinking, modes of expression, and writing motivations.  Practically speaking, Moses' meaning and God's meaning are the same.  But the fact that Moses wrote under inspiration justifies the belief that the Holy Spirit's statements through Moses in Genesis 1 can be interpreted in light of the Holy Spirit's statements through other writers elsewhere in Scripture.  Hence, the fundamental principle of Protestant hermeneutics emerges: the analogy of faith.  In other words, let Scripture interpret Scripture.  While this principle is valid, its relevance must be severely scrutinized lest we become guilty of wrenching a meaning from Moses' writings based on a later statement of Scripture that may have been totally foreign to Moses’ way of thinking.24

Conclusion

As stated at the beginning, this paper was to serve two purposes.  1} to find out whether or not this theory has any relevance to me, and 2} to decide if the theory, because of its convenience, is applicable to biblical doctrine.  At first I found it very difficult to find any published information or anyone that felt "very strongly" one way or another.  But after blowing off the dust at some bookstores, I found volumes of information just waiting to be digested.  This of course took a great deal of time, but II Timothy 2:15 states "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Anything worth having is worth working for.

The reader will also notice that there is a larger portion in the paper dedicated to “The Arguments Against” than “For.”  This wasn’t intended from the start, but as the study continued it became more evident that there was a greater volume of work written there.

I have found that, as Dillow states above, the way we should interpret this passage is as the Holy Spirit meant us to.  I found that the so called "Proof Texts" so expounded by Scofield, Custance, and Pember were to my estimation, stretching both the Hebrew and English forms of speech, trying to prove their points.  In order for me to accept the theory it would have to be biblically sound.  I could not find even one verse that tells of an earlier creation.  I could not find a single verse that speaks of a prior cataclysm (known as Lucifer’s Flood).  I cannot understand why God would have animals and pre-Adamic man dying on this earth before the first sin entered this world through Adam.

Although this subject is hotly debated amongst the theological giants of today, I have to say that for me, this theory does not stand up under close scrutiny.

 

Endnotes

l Bernard Ramm, The Christian view of Science and Scripture, (WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI), p.  1 95

2 Ramm, p. 196

3 Ramm, P.  195

4 Arthur C. Pink, Gleanings in Genesis, (Moody Press, Chicago), p. 11

5 Ramm, p. 197

6 Scofield Reference Bible, p. 4, note 3.

7 G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, (First Edition, 1876, Frequently Published), p. 22

8 Pember, p. 28

9 Pember, p. 35 

10 Pember, p. 74

11 L. Thomas Holdcroft, The Pentateuch, (Western Book Co), p. 132

12 E.  K. Gedney, Geology and the Bible, "Modern Science and Christian Faith", (Second Edition, 1950), p. 49

13 Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, "The Gap Theory", (Baker Book House, 1976), p.  105f

14 Ramm, p. 203

15 Elmer E. Flack, God is not the Author of Confusion, (Christian Faith and Life, 1933)

16 Ramm, p. 204

17 Herschel H. Hobbs, The Origin of All Things, (World Books, Waco, TX 1975) p. 13

18 John C. Witcomb Jr., The Early Earth, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 1972) p. 122

19 J. Pohle, God: The Author of Nature and the Supernatural, (1942), p. 113

20 William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, (Kregel Publishing, Grand Rap1ds, MI, 1978), p. 350

21 Tayler Lewis, Genesis, (Lange), p. 167-168

22 Henry M. Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, (Presbyterian and reformed Pub.  Co., Phil., PA, 1980), p. 31-33

23 Witcomb, p. 116-120

24Joseph C.  Dillow, The Waters Above, (Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1981), p. 14-15

 

Bibliography

Custance, Arthur C.  Evolution or Creation.  Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.  1971

________.  Time and Eternity.  Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.  1977.

Dillow, Joseph C., The Waters Above.  Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1981.

Fields, Weston W., Unformed and Unfilled, "The Gap Theory." Baker Book House, 1976.

Flack, Elmer E., God is not the Author of Confusion, Christian Faith and Life, 1933. 

Gedney, E. R., Geology and the Bible, "Modern Science and Christian Faith." Second Edition, 1950.

Hobbs, Herschel H., The Origin of All Things.  World Books, Waco, TX 1975.

Holdcroft, Thomas, The Pentateuch.  Western Book Co.  Lewis, Tayler, Genesis.  Lange.

Morris, Henry M.  Studies in the Bible and Science. Presbyterian and reformed Pub. Co., Phil., PA, 1980.

_________.  Scientific Creationism.  Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, CA., 1974.

_________.  and John C. Whitcomb, Jr.  The Genesis Flood.  Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1961.

Old Scofield Reference Bible 

Pember, H., Earth's Earliest Ages.  First Edition, 1876, Frequently Published.

Pink, Arthur C., Gleanings in Genesis.  Moody Press, Chicago

Pohle, J., God: The Author of Nature and the Supernatural.  (1942), p. 113

Ramm, Bernard, The Christian view of Science and Scripture.  WM.  B.  Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.

Witcomb Jr., John C., The Early Earth.  Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 1972.

Wilson, William, Old Testament Word Studies.  Kregel Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978.

ã 2002 bobsbiblestudies