Pen of Iron: Gap theory? Gap fact.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:2 is not a part of the creation process. The six days of creation following Genesis 1:2 are actually six days of recreation. During those days God restores the original creation of v.1 which had been destroyed in v.2.
So what you have is the following:

A) God creates the original heaven and earth in v.1. Everything is complete and we are not told how he did it or how long it took him.
The anointed Cherub is Lucipher who’s God’s right-hand over the universe.
According to 2 Peter 3:5 that earth was standing in the water and out of the water. So it was like a ball floating in the waters of space with probably half of it sticking out of the water like a dome.
I realize this looks like left-field to most readers but if you will read on you might find out that the whole thing is a lot more scriptural that you thought.

B) At some point, Lucipher rebels as described in Isaiah 14 and decides to overthrow God. The whole thing ends in a debacle, God floods the universe and turns off the lights.
Genesis 1:2 is a snapshot of that.

C) In Genesis 1:3 God turns back on the lights.

D) In Genesis 1:7 God restores the water-damage, revealing the universe.

E) In Genesis 1:9 God restores the water-damage, revealing the earth.

F) In Genesis 1:27 God replaces Lucipher with Adam, only smaller, because
the last free-willed son of God ruined the universe.

Amongst believers who deny the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, I personally have met very, very few who have actually taken the time to sit down and sketch out the creative process of Genesis 1 while satisfying all verses. That includes preachers and teachers. The careful reader will soon find himself in a Gordian knot that only the gap can untie. I attempted enumerating a few strings of that knot but found it so bewildering that I just thought it best to leave it to you, gentle reader, to make sense of the account without the gap.

I am thoroughly aware of all objections. I will not here concentrate on meeting them, but on proving positively that Genesis 1 is so written as to present an account of the recreation of the universe. Whatever objections you have left, or new ones that might arise, I will be willing to meet specifically.
Above all arguments, towers the inspired system of studying the word of God, which is comparing scripture with scripture as outlined in Isaiah 28:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 2:13. So if I want to know if “without form, and void” is a positive or negative expression, I search out those words as they appear in the rest of the Bible in order to understand the connotation.
And those are things which “cannot be spoken against.” (Acts 19:36)

Let it lastly be said that I do not believe in the gap because I’m looking for a way to reconcile what “science falsely so-called” presents as a ridiculously old earth. I believe it because that what the scriptures present.
After all, I do contend that there’s a gargantuan body of water North of deep space that separates the universe from the third heaven. I further believe that the earth is recreated before the sun. So with positions like these, I hope it will be obvious to the honest reader that I am not pandering to the scientific world.

Scripture With Scripture

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void,

If God’s word does not return unto him void, how could the earth have been created void by his word?

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Three elements match Genesis 1:2; lack of form, void, and darkness.The words without form, and void; are used in the context of destruction, not creation.

Nahum 2:10 She is empty, and void, and waste:

The word void is used in the context of destruction. It is associated with waste, i.e. the destruction caused the void.

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

It's not that Jesus Christ didn't have a shape, for in Isaiah 52:14 he is said to have a form.
But he had ¨¨no form¨¨ in the sense that he had no comeliness, no beauty.
Similarly, it's not that the earth had no shape at all, but it was without form in the sense that it was a jumbled up, beat up, unrecognizable mess; just like Jesus' face and body were after the beating he went through. (See Isaiah 52:14!). Yet again the context is judgment and the idea negative.

This is nobody's private interpretation but the Holy Spirit's own comments on the words.

The World That Then Was

2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

That he isn’t speaking of Noah’s flood is apparent from the following:

1. In the overflow Peter is referring to, the heavens also perished, implying that the heavens of today (v.7) are not the heavens that were there then, hence he calls them “old”.
The problem is that:

A) The heavens did not perish in Noah's flood, only the earth did.

B) The heavens is always a term that includes space. The atmosphere is called “heaven”, but never “heavens”.
Peter is saying that all of deep space perished in that particular overflow. That certainly did not happen in Noah’s flood.

2. Nor did the earth perish in Noah’s flood. We still have the same earth as Noah, as evidenced by the residual oceans. For earth to perish would mean for it to disintegrate. According to Peter in the same chapter, there will come a day when the heavens and the earth shall be so destroyed that God will have to make what is termed as new heavens and a new earth because the former will have perished.
That destruction is so complete that the earth is said to be dissolved (vss.10-11). It is in comparison to that kind of destruction that the next earth is termed ``new``. No such destruction befell Noah’s earth. It just got washed of its filth.
So today’s earth is a not a new earth compared to Noah’s in that sense, nor is it ever called "new".
Today's earth is the same earth that Noah walked on and cannot be termed "new" in comparison. But it can be termed new in comparison to the earth of Genesis 1:2 which was "without form, and void".

3. Peter is then drawing symmetry between the destruction of Genesis 1:2 and the destruction of 2 Peter 3:7,12.

You also have another symmetry within that one, which is the destruction of the earth in Noah’s flood and its destruction at the second advent of the Lord.

In those two events, earth’s topography is changed, but the earth doesn’t perish. It is symmetrically renovated in those two events; it is symmetrically destroyed at Satan’s first rebellion (Genesis 1:2) and Satan’s last rebellion after the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20:9).

The symmetry is A B B A.

The earth is destroyed at man's first rebellion, and again at his last rebellion. The first time it is destroyed by water (Genesis 6:17) and the last time when the times of the Gentiles come to an end, it is destroyed by fire (2Thessalonians 1:8).

The earth is destroyed at Satan's first rebellion and again at his last rebellion. The first time it was destroyed with water (Genesis 1:2), the last time it is destroyed by fire (Revelation 20:9).

4. In v.5 Peter says that that earth was standing in the water and out of the water. Today’s earth isn’t standing in the water and out of the water but hangs on nothing in space (Job 26:7). To say that today’s earth fits that description in that the land mass stands out of the oceans ignores the fact that Peter is pointing out that description as a specific characteristic of the earth that than was. He’s saying: unlike today’s earth, the old earth was standing in and out of the water. He’s highlighting a distinctive feature of the old earth in contradistinction to today’s earth. Otherwise what would be the point of mentioning that characteristic?
It would be like saying that the earth that then was which had a blue sky, perished. Well so what? So does this one.
No, for the specification to make any sense one would have to consider that the world that then was, in context, is not Noah’s world. And it must’ve stood in the water and out of the water in a way that is different than today’s world.

Moreover, nobody anywhere is willingly ignorant of the fact that earth’s land mass juts out of the oceans! They can see that with their eyes.
So if Peter is referring to that fact when he says `standing in the water and out of the water` he’s wrong. Common sense tells you he’s talking about something else.

Peter is talking about people who are willingly ignorant of the Old Testament scriptures concerning the `original` earth. Check the context: `the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets` v.2. How would anyone know that the heavens and the earth were created by the word of God (v.5) except by reading the word of God?!

So what verses were those scoffers ignoring in relation to the earth `standing in the water and out of the water`?

Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psalm 24:2 For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

Today’s earth isn’t founded or established upon any waters but hangs on nothing! (Job 26:7).

Again:

Psalm 136:6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Picture Of Judgment

Bear in mind that Noah’s flood was a judgment. Below are parallel imageries between Noah’s flood and the overflow of Genesis 1:2.

· In Genesis 8:8-9 a dove flies upon the face of the waters.
A dove is type of the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:22) which "moves upon the face of the waters."

· In Genesis 8:1 a wind passes over the waters.
Wind is a type of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16) which moves upon the face of the waters.

· In Genesis 7:18 the ark goes upon “the face of the waters” just like the Spirit of God moved “upon the face of the waters”.

In all those cases the imagery is that of judgment.

Satan's Rebellion

If Genesis 1:2 doesn’t picture the destruction of a pre-Adamic earth, then the initial rebellion of the Devil and his angels must be placed somewhere between the 8th day and Genesis 3:1, the angelic beings having been created at some point during the six days of creation. However unlikely that they rebelled within such a short time span without an exterior influence as in the case of Eve, it still may have happened.

But the problem is that we don’t we read of God creating the angelic beings anywhere during the six days of Genesis 1. Genesis 2:1 is a reference to the sun, the moon, and the stars. I can place that host in Genesis 1:16. But where are the angels, the Seraphims and the Cherubims? Why are the sun, moon and stars mentioned in heaven; the beasts, cattle and even creeping things mentioned in earth, while the creation of the angelic beings, certainly the most glorious of all created life, never even discussed?

The only possible answer is that they were already there. This is confirmed in Job 38:4-7.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

According to God the morning stars and the sons of God were there singing and shouting while he was laying the corner stone of the earth. (Probably even before the creation of the earth of Genesis 1:1)
Yet back in Genesis 1 the earth is there before the sun, moon and stars.
You’ve got quite a problem if you don’t understand that Genesis 1 relates six days of recreation.

Notable Omission

After describing each day of creation, the Holy Spirit mentions that God saw that it was good except for the second day wherein God creates the heaven.
Why? A bible-believer whose senses are exercised by reason of reading the word will here detect an inspired omission of the Holy Spirit.
It is no chance that such an omission is made for that particular day as will soon be proved.

By denying that Genesis 1:2 is a judgment of a pre-Adamite earth one has no explanation why God does not see the heaven as “good” in Genesis 1:7.

Some might object by referring to the last verse of Genesis 1 which says "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." But that is simply a general statement in relation to the overall creation and does not apply to every day specifically. That this is so is clear for two reasons, the first being common sense. There might be some undesirable element in a part of a work, such as a painting, but the outstanding element does not rob that particular work of art from being called "very good". The second reason that v.31 cannot apply to every creative day specifically is because God saw that each day was "good", not "very good" else the Bible would've said so. Afterall, the Holy Spirit did choose to add the word "very" in v.31.

So why did God not see that the heaven was good? This is not an isolated incident of negative connotation. The rest of the scriptures also present the heavens with a specifically negative connotation.

Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

God's point of view is again negative. In Genesis 1:7 he did not see that the heaven was good, and according to Job they are not clean in his sight.
How could something that God created be found unclean?
The answer is because of what took abode in that heaven.

Job a gets a little more specific:

Job 25:5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.

Again with God's sight. God created the stars, how then can they be impure?
The answer is what those stars are associated with: angels.

Remember that in Job 38:7 God speaks of angelic beings as "stars". Many times the scriptures will speak of angels as stars.

The reason that God never says that the heaven was good in Genesis 1:7 is because Satan and his fallen angels infested that heaven after they were judged in the overflow of Genesis 1:2.

That's why Genesis 6:11 says

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

It says "also" because the heaven had already been corrupted by fallen angels back in Genesis 1:7 as they repopulated the heaven which God had flooded in Genesis 1:2.
But when God recreated the earth in Genesis 1:9-12 he sees that it is good because he had cleansed it of its rebellious host and it wasn't corrupt anymore, albeit for a short period of time.

That those evil beings inhabit the heavens is clear from scripture:

Isaiah 24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

1Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Haven't you noticed that space is dark? That is because it is filled with the powers of darkness.

Those then were the gods that Satan was referring to when he seduced Eve.

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, (not "God") knowing good and evil.

The abode of the gods of Genesis 3:5 and 1 Corinthians 8:5 is not with flesh.

Daniel 2:11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.

Their dwelling today is in the heavens. They once inhabited the pre-Adamite earth in (probably) physical bodies, just like the gods that would later inhabit Noah's earth in physical bodies (Genesis 6:4). It is very clear in scripture that angels can take on physical bodies and interact with men. The references are too numerous to list.

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psalm 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

The problem of fallen angels is that once they become men, they can also die as such. Even Hollywood understood that truth in movies like "city of angels". That shows you that the writers are either Bible students or they're inspired by devils.

Men are not gods and men die physically. God is talking to fallen angels and telling them that since they have taken physical form, he will kill them physically, like he kills mere men. He did it twice before; once in Genesis 1:2 and once in Genesis 7, and will do it yet again at the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ who himself warned us (Luke 17:26) that what happened in the days of Noah (see Genesis 6) will happen again.

(If you can't believe all this and remain skeptical how water can destroy spiritual beings, simply recall that the Bible clearly teaches that Satan and his angels are judged by fire. If they can be judged by fire, they can be judged by water.)

Finally, all this explains why God is interested in destroying the heavens, not just the earth alone.
The reason is that the universe is infested with wicked spiritual beings

Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

2Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Satan in Eden

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

In Ezekiel 28:13, Satan is present in Eden the garden of God in his pre-fall glory, certainly not as a serpent. You could not account for that without considering a pre-Adamic earth, for the first time Satan appears in the Bible he’s in the garden of Eden as a fallen being.

That Ezekiel 28:13 is a description of Lucipher’s glory before his fall is all the more clear from the parallel description of Aaron the high priest in Exodus 28:17-20. Aaron is there covered by all the stones mentioned in Ezekiel 28:13 and is certainly not standing as a picture of a fallen Cherub.