by Greg Kedrovsky

In this study we take a look at the ten most common objections to the teaching of a Gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2:

1. Romans 5.12 teaches that sin and death entered our world through Adam, not through Lucifer.
2. Exodus 20.11 says that God created the world and all thing in it during six 24-hour days.
3. Historically the word “replenish” in Genesis 1.28 means “to fill,” not “to fill again.”
4. Thomas Chalmers invented the Gap Theory in 1814 as a way to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the teachings of evolution (and the evolutionist idea of the earth’s long life).
5. According to Ezekiel 28.13-15, Satan was created on a specific “day.” How could that have happened before Genesis 1.2 when the first day mentioned in Scripture is in Genesis 1.3-5?
6. According to Isaiah 14.14, Lucifer rebelled when there were clouds and stars. If there weren’t clouds and starts until after the fourth day of creation, how could Lucifer have rebelled in a “Gap” between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2?
7. According to Ezekiel 28.13-17, Lucifer existed in his unfallen state in the Garden of Eden which was not created until the sixth day, in Genesis 1.24-31. How could he have fallen between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2 if he was in the Garden of Eden in his unfallen state in Genesis 1.24-31?
8. The “Gap Theory” undermines the simplicity and authority of Scripture.
9. The existence of a Gap would imply a “three-earth” theory, and yet Revelation 21.1 says that the “first earth” will exist until it is destroyed by fire at the end of the Millennium.
10. In Genesis 1.31 God says that “every thing” that He had made was “very good.” If Satan had already fallen, God could not have made this statement.

Most if not all of the quotes and objections in this lesson are taken from the booklet entitled The Gap Theory by Dr. Kent Hovind and Stephen Lawwell, and the Answers in Genesis web site which contains material by Charles Taylor and Ken Ham.

by Greg Kedrovsky

We know that something had to have happened between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. When God made the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1.1, it was perfect, beautiful, and habitable. Yet in Genesis 1.2 the creation is dark, void, and under water. What happened?

What happened between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2 was the rebellion of Lucifer, the fifth cherub. There is no other place in Scripture to locate the rebellion and fall of Lucifer when he tried to enter into God’s presences and throw Him off the throne. It was a sin of such magnitude that it affected the whole of creation, from the “top down.”

Yet after Genesis 1.2 we see God entering into His creation again in order to “clean things up.” In six days God renovated the creation He made in Genesis 1.1 and which was later ruined by sin before Genesis 1.2 (it was ruined in “the Gap” and the results are seen in Genesis 1.2). What happened during these six “days of creation” that we see in Genesis 1? That’s what we are going to find out in this study of the creation and its subsequent renovation.

Isaiah 14: Satan and His Original Sin

by Greg Kedrovsky

This lesson is the last half of the study on Lucifer’s rebellion which took place in the Gap. We’ve already seen his original state in Ezekiel 28.11-19, and now in this lesson we analyze Isaiah 14.12-17 which speaks more specifically about his rebellion and fall.

Again, one must ask himself: Where else could this have happened? If Adam’s sin (one bite from one piece of fruit) caused these 6,000 years of ruin, devastation, death, suffering, and misery, how much more damage would Lucifer’s rebellion have caused (he and one third of the angels tried to throw God off the throne of the universe)? If there is no Gap, there is no place in the Bible for Lucifer’s fall.

Ezekiel 28: Satan and His Original State

by Greg Kedrovsky

So far in our study we’ve seen quite a bit of biblical evidence for a Gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. From what we have read and studied, it’s obvious that “something” happened after the perfect original creation of the world in Genesis 1.1. It caused a terrible catastrophe that resulted in the earth becoming without form, void, covered in darkness, and submerged in water.

That “something” that caused the ruin of God’s perfect creation was the sin and rebellion of the creation know before and Lucifer and known today as Satan and the Devil. There is absolutely no other logical (or biblical) place to put the rebellion, fall, and subsequent judgment of Lucifer other than the Gap of Genesis 1.1 and 1.2.

What happened exactly? What can we learn from Scripture about this being who thought he could take over God’s kingdom and reign on God’s thrown? That’s just what we want to find out in the lesson.

There are basically two key passages that speak of Lucifer and his fall: Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.
In Ezekiel 29.11-19 God gives us quite a few details about Lucifer in his original state. This passage also mentions his sin, rebellion, and judgment.Isaiah 14.12.17 deals more specifically with the rebellion of Lucifer and his later judgment.

This message deals with the first of those two passages: Ezekiel 28, Satan and His Original State.

[The PDF notes for this message are still in "draft" form. They will more than likely be presented complete with the next message on Isaiah 14.12-17.]

by Greg Kedrovsky

This is the second part of a lesson on the ten biblical reasons why there has to be a Gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. You may have noticed that since the last post I’ve added a reason (The Gap #3a was “Nine Reasons Why…”). I added one more; the more the merrier, right? :-)

The link to the pdf is the full set of notes that covers the material in both audio files. However, because of time constraints, while teaching I skipped a lot of what I have written in the notes. If you want the entire study, you’ll need to download the PDF.

If all the links and stuff are confusing… here they are in one place:

1. PDF (full written notes) of Ten Reasons Why the Gap is a Fact
2. First mp3 covering the first three of the ten reasons (last week / last post).
3. Second mp3 covering the final seven reasons (this week / this post)

There has to be a gap of time between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. Many people want to refer to the Gap as a “theory,” but it’s not. These ten biblical reasons prove that the Gap is a fact:

1. The Polysyndeton of Genesis 1: God repeats the word “and” to draw our attention to important words and phrases.
2. The Words of Genesis 1.1-2: Words like “created” in verse 1 don’t go well with words like “without form and void” in verse two. Something happened!
3. The Darkness of Genesis 1.2: If God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all, then where did the darkness come from in Genesis 1.2?
4. The Waters of Genesis 1.2: Why is the entire creation under water in Genesis 1.2? Where did the water come from and why?
5. The Division of Genesis 1.2: There was no division in the original creation (Gen 1.1). Division always signifies sin—the wages of sin is death, and death in the Bible is a separation (from life). Why do we see division and separation in God’s creation in Genesis 1.2 if there was no sin? Clearly there was sin!
6. The Parallelism of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2: God shows us the world that then was (Gen 1.1) and its ruin (Gen 1.2), and then the world that now is (Gen 1.3-2.25) and its ruin (Gen 3.1-6).
7. The New Testament and the Testimony of the Christian: In 2Corinthians 4.6 Paul draws a parallel between Genesis 1 and our salvation testimony. If there was no original sin in the Gap, then there was no original sin in Man. The Bible just doesn’t work without a Gap.
8. Sin in the Universe: Adam’s sin affected his race and the earth. Who’s sin affected the rest of creation? It has to be Lucifer’s sin of rebellion during the Gap.
9. The Existence of the Devil: There is no other logical place for the fall of Lucifer other than the Gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. His was the first sin and would have caused catastrophic destruction in the whole of creation, exactly like we see in Genesis 1.2.
10. God told Adam to “replenish” the earth: He gave Noah the same commission because Noah was to re-populate the earth after the flood. Adam, too, was to do the same.

by Greg Kedrovsky

This is the first part of a lesson on the nine biblical reasons why there has to be a Gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. The notes offered in the PDF are a very (!) rough draft that will eventually get cleaned up as the study of the nine reasons progresses.

Many people want to refer to the Gap as a “theory” (they call it “The Gap Theory”). This lesson is proof positive that it is not a theory, but rather a “fact.”

• The dictionary defines a “theory” as proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-establish propostions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
• The Gap is not “conjectural”—it’s not a conjecture (a “best guess” based on “my opinion”). Conjectures are expressions of theory or opinion that have no sufficient evidence for proof. With the Gap there is ample evidence to support its existence. As a matter of fact, if the Gap isn’t true, you weren’t born a sinner. How’s that for “conjecture”?

by Greg Kedrovsky

Dr. Kent Hovind is among many “creation scientists” who misrepresent those of us who teach a gap of time and space between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. They claim that “the gap theory became a convenient method by which theologians compromise Holy Scripture with Darwin’s evolution theory.” Hovind and his collegues say that we use the Gap to suggest an explanation for the billions of years of evolution proposed by modern science and thereby “harmonize God’s perfect Word with man’s imperfect thoughts.”

If the student of Scripture will make only four simple observations in Genesis 1.1, he will see that these claims are false and the biblical support for a Gap exists in abundance. You can download this second installment of our study on the Gap in either PDF to read or in an mp3 audio file.

• The Gap (#1): Introduction and Orientation [pdf & mp3]

Radical Zeal for the Mission: If we are not actively evangelizing (which is our Mission: “seek and save the lost”), then we will fill our churches by transfer growth. We’ll be the new church in the new suburb that attracts the “already churched” that are looking for a change of scenery.

Calling Men to Repentance: If we are not actively calling men to repentance in our evangelism efforts, then we will fill our churches with false converts (lost people who think they are saved because they “prayed a prayer” or “accept Jesus”).