[This treatise was co-written by Brian and Kenneth Hoeck for Truth On The Web Ministries]

Is the Earth really billions and billions of years old? Secular science has declared it so. How about the rest of our galaxy? The universe? Can science accurately determine their age? What does evidence really show? More importantly, what does the Holy Bible teach?


Does Scripture agree with secular science, or does it teach that the Earth and the rest of the universe are really only a few thousand years old? In an effort to harmonize Scripture with the world's science, some scholars and ministers have held that the Scriptures actually reveal a longer history ... one of ruin and reconstruction. This is known widely as the "Gap Theory." Although it may appear to square with secular science, we must ask, is it accurate?

The basic tenets of the Gap Theory are as follows:

Billions of years ago, God created the heaven and earth in a state of perfection (Genesis 1:1). He placed Satan (then known as "Lucifer," an angel of God) and the other angelic beings upon the earth. It was at this time that He created and placed dinosaurs, 'cave-men,' and other such species upon the earth as well. He had declared 'Lucifer' to be ruler of this planet, but 'Lucifer' got puffed up in his beauty and wisdom and desired the Throne of God and tried to ascend to Heaven (Isaiah 14). Satan sways one-third of the angels to revolt with him. Thus, there was a 'war in the heavens' (Revelation 12) and Satan and his demons were cast back to earth. There was sent forth a flood from God upon the earth (II Peter 3:5,6; "the deep" of Genesis 1:2 is evidence of it). The heavens were destroyed in this battle and darkness fell upon the earth (Genesis 1:2; and Jeremiah 4:23)--introducing the ice age. All life was destroyed upon the earth (Jeremiah 4:23-29), so God had to remake the earth and create new life (Gen 1:3 onward).

Is such a concept Scripturally and/or scientifically viable? We shall now deeply examine this theory for Scriptural and scientific soundness.

"Prove all things , hold fast that which is good." - I Thessalonians 5:21

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Gap creationism (also known as Ruin-Restoration creationism, Restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory"), is a form of OLD-EARTH creationism. It agrees that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but supposes that there was a "GAP" of time between TWO DISTINCT CREATIONS in the first and the second verses of Genesis. The REASON this THEORY came into being was to reconcile the bible text with the THEORY that the age of the Earth is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. It posits that an EARLIER creation, complete with dinosaurs and pre-Adamic hominoids lived and died before the "Genesis days of creation." In this it differs from what is called "Day-Age" creationism, which hypothesizes that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years) rather than literal 24 hour days - despite the fact that the text says that EVENING AND MORNING described each DAY.
We at Truth On The Web Ministries teach Young Earth creationism, which believes that the WORD OF GOD clearly reveals six literal 24-hour days of creation and does not posit any IMAGINED gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

We believe God can make things with the appearance of age, for example, a full grown man Adam (...what scientist would say he was only one day old at his creation by examining him after the fact?). The Garden included full-grown plants, fruit, trees and animals. There are many scientific proofs for a young creation that one can examine.


Many people have tried to ADD a gap of indeterminate time between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1. There are many different versions as to what supposedly happened in this "gap" of time. Most versions of the "gap" theory sandwich millions of years of geologic time (including billions of fossil animals) in between these two first verses of Genesis.

As we have said, the myth teaches that Satan gains control of one-third of all of God's angels and waged a war with God and His remaining loyal angels between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. (Satan does have fallen angels/demons but the one-third figure is not substantiated by the bible. This is erroneously taken from Rev 12:4 which actually says "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth" - meaning he conquered these angels in battle.) In the Gap Theory fantasy, earth is created and exists for millions and millions of years (in some versions evolution of species takes place in the alleged FIRST creation). PRE-ADAMIC MAN (cavemen - whom they say weren't really 'men') also existed in this imaginative scenario. The battle or "Star Wars" wrecked the universe including earth, causing the death and destruction of everything on the formerly perfect planet. Next, per this theory, Genesis 1:2 has the formless earth RECREATED by God and THEN the literal six days of RE-Creation commence and now the bible reads plainly again. Such is the theory of "Ruin-Restoration creationism." Sounds good, doesn't it? .... EXCEPT the bible doesn't say that!


Why is it even important to examine the Gap Theory? "Does it even matter?," one might ask. This is not just a harmless theory. This is, in itself, an ATTACK on the WORD OF GOD ITSELF! It directly and underhandedly UNDERMINES THE GOSPEL to its very FOUNDATIONS as it allows for DEATH, BLOODSHED, DISEASE, and SUFFERING from SIN BEFORE ADAM'S SIN. It denies the Word of God which clearly tells us that man's SIN brought decay and death.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Just because "ruin-reconstruction" theorists want to square up with the fallible theories of scientists who have accepted the millions of years dating for the fossil record, they have DENIED THE VERY FOUNDATIONS of Scripture. Psalms 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

In his book, Earth's Earliest Ages, Gap-Theory-promulgator George H. Pember suggested that the fossil record was "clear and compelling evidence of death, disease, ferocity, and even sin" all of which had occurred before Adam and Eve existed. He wrote: "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." ... "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" (Earth"s Earliest Ages, George H. Pember; 1876, p. 35).

The bible is not ambiguous when it states that all people die because of Adam and Eve's original sin. All forms of Old-Earth creationism deny this, unthinkingly declaring that animals and prehistoric men died for millions and millions of years ... before Adam existed. This also carries, with that theory, the implication that Adam was also doomed to physically die, regardless of sin. Gap Theory Proponents view death and struggle as a part of life that has existed since the beginning. In this alone should you decide whom you will serve! The case is settled now you must choose whom to believe: fallible man who wasn't there OR an infallible God who was.


Concerning when CREATION occurred, we see in Mark 10:6 that Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” In these very words, Jesus clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were created in “the beginning of the creation”—not after billions of years had passed. Also, the expression “beginning of the creation” rules out any “re-creation” or “second start” as taught by many gap theorists.


In a strong testimony, time itself bears record against this gap theory. Adam, Moses, Job, David, Jesus through the gospel writers, and all the other men and women of the bible do not seem to mention this most important catastrophic event of the pre-Adamic world. NOT A SINGLE BIBLICAL WRITER MENTIONS AN INKLING OF THIS (what would be a) MOMENTOUS EVENT. Some refer to the Noachian deluge (Flood) but this other world calamity is not mentioned. Why is that? Maybe the bible doesn't agree with the gap theory! Tomes of silence echo in the halls of Truth!

Yet, where the bible is silent the inventions of men have shouted they know more than God's Word reveals! A famous nineteenth-century expression of the Reformation was: "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent" (which follows the pattern set forth in 1 Peter 4:11).

Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute. ~ Josh Billings, US Humorist (1818 - 1885)

The next several witnesses were called by the Gap Theorists to prove their cause. We believe that all these witnesses are weak and circumstantial. There are bits of info found for and against this theory - although most heavily weighted against the gap Theory and more "for" a single creation ex nihlo (out of nothing) that began in the dark first portion of the first day. We will briefly touch upon these but choose not to spend much time in these things but rather in the Scripture, which is, primary authority as the Word of God.


The Churches that put forth the gap theory assert that "the earliest supposed recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century." (Take notice that this admits the first argument of silence that the 6 day creation was not questioned by the biblical writers themselves.) The Gap-Theorist corporate churches, of our genre, tell you that Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." But is this entirely true? Let us look at the foundations this THEORY is built upon. The first translation of this Targum that we looked at said differently fact it used "was waste and empty" - indicating it was created that way up to that point. In the table below we print an excerpt from the Targum of Onkelos as translated by J.W. Etheridge. Something can be 'lay waste' until the worker puts his hand to the plow. It does not necessarily mean it was previously good and ordered and then became wasted by something. A chunk of marble lays waste until the sculptor chisels his masterpiece or it can 'be laid waste' afterwards - so the word 'waste' has no bearing either way. So again, we see the legs and feet of the Gap Theory are feeble, more miry clay mixed with a bit of iron, and cannot stand the light of scrutiny. Would you build a doctrine off this? Theories and suppositions can get us in deep doctrinal trouble ... the scriptures admonish us to not go beyond what is written.

1 In the first times the Lord created the heavens and the earth. 2. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss; and a wind from before the Lord blew upon the face of the waters.

Aramaic Targum of Onkelos translated to English by J.W. Etheridge


Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, the recognized textbook on the Hebrew language opposes the gap with a host of Hebrew Scholars as witnesses: "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." - E. K. Gedney, Geology and the Bible, "Modern Science and Christian Faith", (Second Edition, 1950), p. 49


The next proof text put forth by Gapists is that the early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, surmised that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342). This argument supposes much and proves nothing. In fact, let us look at the exact phrase Gap-ists refer to Origen speaking on the "foundation of the world": Origen said, "This point, indeed, is not to be idly passed by, that the holy Scriptures have called the creation of the world by a new and peculiar name, terming it <greek>katabolh</greek>, which has been very improperly translated into Latin by "constitutio;" for in Greek <greek>katabolh</greek> signifies rather "dejicere," i.e., to cast downwards, ..."

First of all, the Catholic Origin is incorrect that the meaning of the word "foundation," or "katabole" in the Greek, means 'cast downwards' as a simple study will reveal:

The Bible Text uses "katabole," and NOT "kataballo," which is important! Strong's Greek Dictionary 2602. katabole katabolh katabole kat-ab-ol-ay' from 2598; a deposition, i.e. founding; figuratively, conception:--conceive, foundation. See Greek 2598; Strong's Greek Dictionary 2598 kataballw kataballo kat-ab-al'-lo from 2596 and 906; to throw down:--cast down, lay. See Greek 2596. Although Strong's tries to connect the word katabole with kataballo the scriptures show differently by the usage of the words.

The katabole word in the Bible is used eleven (11) times. Ten of the eleven it is rendered "Foundation (katabole)" of the world (kosmos). The eleventh time is it used spells out distinctly its new testament use and meaning - conception! Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive (katabole) seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Second of all, Origen didn't teach the Gap theory (although he believed in other worlds beginning and ending) and explains his position in the very same works "De Principiis." He wrote: "The particular points(1) clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:-- First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being--God from the first creation and foundation of the world --the God of all just men, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sere, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; ...This also is a part of the Church's teaching, that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain time, and is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness. But what existed before this world, or what will exist after it [alluding to the new Earth in Revelation.], has not become certainly known to the many, for there is no clear statement regarding it in the teaching of the Church. ...[ORIGEN, DE PRINCIPIIS. PREFACE.4.] Origen continues: 1. And now, since there is one of the articles of the Church[10] which is held principally in consequence of our belief in the truth of our sacred history, viz. that this world was created and took its beginning at a certain time, and, in conformity to the cycle of time decreed to all things, is to be destroyed on account of its corruption, there seems no absurdity in re-discussing a few points connected with this subject. And so far, indeed, as the credibility of Scripture is concerned, the declarations on such a matter seem easy of proof. Even the heretics, although widely opposed on many other things, yet on this appear to be at one, yielding to the authority of Scripture. ... nevertheless the language of the narrator shows that all visible things were created at a certain time. [ORIGEN, DE PRINCIPIIS. CHAP. V.--THAT THE WORLD TOOK ITS BEGINNING IN TIME.]

This is the BEST argument from this era that the Gap-ist can come up with? (The witness may step down - no further questions!)


Gap Theorist's say that the present idea of a gap of millions or billions of years can later be traced back to the rather obscure writings of the Dutchman Episcopius (1583-1643). We may add that Hutton"s Theory of the Earth (Edinburgh, 1788) was one of the first books to argue for an ancient earth and the closest thing to the modern gap theory was first recorded from one of Thomas Chalmers' lectures in 1814. The best argument Gap Theorists have from the Protestant side of Christendom is found in Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland.

In the 19th century, it became popular to believe that the geological changes occurred slowly, and roughly at the present rate (uniformitarianism). There have been 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), such as "theistic evolution" and "progressive creation." The gap theory was another significant attempt by Christian theologians to reconcile the time scale of world history found in Genesis with the popular belief that geologists provide "undeniable" evidence that the world is exceedingly old (billions of years). Rev. William Buckland, a geologist, did much to popularize the idea to square the text with his science. The idea was also attributed to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

The basic reason for developing and promoting the gap theory can be seen from the following very telling quotes from Protestantism:

Scofield Study Bible: "Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains."

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."

You see, it wasn't in seeking God or His Truth but after answers to what they saw with their eyes on the world (walking not by faith as instructed but rather by sight). They took the bible and then saw a conflict with man's science. So they modified the Bible to fit into their science when we should be doing the opposite. These promulgators of the Gap did not base their claim on what the Bible said, nor the claim of earlier Christians, but on the THEORIES of men and their new secular anti-god view. Again, the weakness of the witness for pro-gap is obvious to all who seek truth.

"If human science is inconsistent with the sacred record, so much the worse for human science." - Rev Gardiner Spring, "God"s First Work. Geological Theories" Watchman and Observer 6.29 (May 8, 1851). 153. Spring rejected both the Day-Age and Gap theories as forcing the text beyond the bounds of plausible interpretation.

No matter what the Gap-Promoting men postulate, if they cannot square it with the rest of the scriptures in harmony, they can neither then assert their theory as viable or valid. The Young Earth six day creation view has been the majority position throughout the history of the church and was held with virtual unanimity by the reformers. It is the view that was held without known exception by the authors of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Today, even with the rise of alternative theories, the twenty-four hour day view remains the majority position in conservative churches today.

Okay, let us get back to the biblical text - which is our prime witness today, as it should always be.



One of the major supports for the Gap Theory is the fact that the Hebrew word "hayetha" or "hayah", which is translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 can also be translated "became". An example of this is found in Genesis 19:26 which states, "But his wife looked back from him and became a pillar of salt." There are five other instances of this type of translation within the Torah. In Genesis 3:20, "hayetha" is translated "was" but would probably fit the context better if it were translated "became": "and Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of all living." Based on these instances, the proponents of the theory feel that it would be satisfactory to translate Genesis 1:2, "and the earth became without form and void." This translation, according to the theory, would appear to indicate that something had happened which had turned God's original creation into chaos. A foundation for a doctrine would be built on shifting sands if it hinged upon this single word and its varied meaning. Since most pro and con positions cite this 'proof' we will briefly comment our position.

hayah--(Strong's 1961)--"TO BE, TO become, to be made or exist, to come to pass..." (H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p.221)

While it may be said that the supporters of the Gap Theory have a seemingly good argument, the light of Scripture refutes their arguments entirely. In response to the idea that "hayetha" should be translated "became" instead of "was," opponents of the theory point to the Scriptures. While it is true that the translation "became" occurs six times in the Pentateuch, in each of these times the text clearly shows that a change took place [CONTEXT]. An example of this is found in Genesis 3:22, which reads, "and the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." There is no clear textual indication of a change taking place in Genesis 1:2. Also, while "hayetha" is translated "become" six times in the Pentateuch, it is translated "was" 258 times. In fact, in a broad overview of the entire Old Testament, the translation "became" appears 64 times while "was" appears 4900 times.(10) On the weight of numbers alone, a switch would seem very unnecessary.


"The cataclysmic theory (also called the restitution theory) respecting v. 2 can have no place in a proper translation. The construction of 'became void,' etc., is not justified by Hebrew syntax. When the verb 'to be' (hayah) is to be constructed as 'became,' the addition of the prepositional lamedh is required with the following word to provide this meaning, and this preposition is absent here." (Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis, p. 49).

"In Genesis 1:2a the verb is perfect. It indicates a fixed and completed state. In other words, original matter was in a state of chaos when created: it came into being that way." (Hebrew scholar W. C. Watts, A Survey of Old Testament Preaching, p.16)

The linguistic proof is also carried over in the Greek translation called The Septuagint. Though in some instances the Septuagint translators rendered the verb hayah as became they did not render it such in Genesis 1:2. This demonstrates that they understood the word to mean WAS and not became.

"The entire interpretation of geology and Genesis is made to hinge on secondary meanings of two Hebrew words. To indicate that in some cases waw may mean but, and that hayah means became, does not give full warrant to insert these meanings in Genesis 1:2 and require all geology to conform"

(Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science And Scripture, Eerdmans, 1954, p. 139).

Here is an example where the word "Hayah" is rendered WAS: Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was [hyh=hayah] more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

This certainly seems to be a good translation in this context. In fact, just for example, three of the first instances in Genesis have it rendered "was", "be" and "shall be" ... but not "become" or "had become." You may review them here:

A very telling use of the word is found when Moses asks YHWH what His name is. Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses , I AM [hyh =hayah] THAT I AM [hyh =hayah]: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Now did he mean "I became that I became?" Question: Did He BECOME? EVER? Or He always WAS? Had He BECAME or did He always exist (WAS)? Doesn't this say ... "I exist that I always existed?" Or "I AM because I ALWAYS WAS (or HAVE BEEN)"? I think this all shows that the word can be rendered "was" yet, as we have said, we do not dare build a foundational doctrine on a single word and have other proofs to share with the reader. (Remember, to use the "became" translation one does also have to accept the proposition that sin, suffering and death occurred before Adam's sin; which is provably false, as clearly shown in undisputed bible texts.)

Genesis 1:2 "Was" or "Became" In Light Of Jonah 3:3

Jonah 3:3 offers an exact grammatical parallel to Gen 1:1,2: "Jonah arose and went to Ninevah was an exceeding great city of three days journey."

Note the following table from Weston W. Fields' Unformed and Unfilled A Critique of the Gap Theory, p.105 (please recall that Hebrew reads from right to left):





Waw Disjunctive

tohu wa-bohu




Genesis 1:2 Transliteration

unformed and unfilled


the earth



ir gedola




Jonah 3:3 Transliteration

a great city





Obviously Ninevah did not become a great city due to Jonah entering it. Just as Ninevah was already a great city prior to Jonah entering it, the condition of the earth stated in Genesis 1:2 is the same condition as God initially created it in Genesis 1:1--unformed and unfilled.


The translation of Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." is used by some "Gap-ists" to state that God had completed this creation (and it fit well with their translation of the word Hayah previously discussed.) Does the word created mean completed?

God Begins His Creating

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1 KJV)

"In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and earth...." (Gen 1:1 Young's literal translation)

"At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth..." (Gen 1:1 Five Books of Moses, Schocken Bible Vol. 1)

This tells us that God's work was, as yet, incomplete. He was in the midst of creating! The heavens and earth yet unformed and unfilled, the earth being merely a water-covered dark mass at this point: "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." (Gen 1:2 KJV)

Gap theorists will still cling to their man made myth by reciting Isaiah 45:18 " ...he hath established it , he created it not in vain , he formed it to be inhabited " KJV ("not in vain" is translated from the Hebrew word tohu meaning waste or formless). This statement is entirely true. God didn't form the earth to be uninhabited, but as of Genesis 1:2, He wasn't done creating the finished product yet!


Was the earth and all that is in it created all at once, or was it originally yet unformed ("without form"--"tohu") and unfilled ("void"--"bohu") at one time (that is, the initial unfinished creation of Gen 1:2), and had yet to be formed and filled over the six day period spoken of in Gen 1?

Consider this: The days spoken of in Genesis 1 show the forming of the earth (days 1-3) and the filling of it (days 4-6), and these days correspond to one another. Notice:

The Six Days of Creation






Light - Day ONE: Let there be light---day and night created (Gen 1:3-5)


Lights - Day FOUR: God made two great lights--one to fill the day (sun), one to fill the night (moon). (Gen 1:14-19) This first day of filling His creation corresponds to His first day of forming His creation (Day 1 "Light" and Day 4 "Lights")


Seas and Heavens - Day TWO: God separated the waters, thus forming the heaven above and the sea below (Gen 1:6-8)


Sea Life and Fowls of the Air - Day FIVE: God filled the waters He formed with all sorts of sea life and filled the heaven He formed with all sorts of fowls of the air. (Gen 1:20-23) This second day of filling His creation corresponds to His second day of forming His creation (Day 2 "waters below, waters above" and Day 5 "sea life and flying things")


Land and Vegetation - Day THREE: God gathered all the waters of below together and thus formed the dry land. He then named the water "Seas" and the land "Earth." He also formed the vegetation of the land. (Gen 1:9-13)


Land Animals and Man -Day SIX: God filled the land He formed with all sorts of living land animals, and of course, with man as well. (Gen 1:24-31) This third day of filling His creation corresponds to His third day of forming His creation (Day 3 "land" and Day 6 "land animals and man")

Thus in six days, the heavens and the earth, which were unformed and unfilled at their initial conception, were formed and filled. Day SEVEN: And God rested the Seventh Day from all His labors


In Genesis 1;2 the words "without form and void" are "tohu"(Strong's #8414) meaning wasteland as in uninhabited, wilderness, desolation ... and "bohu"(Strong's #922) meaning to be empty, a vacuity. This is the beginning of the potter working the clay into something recognizable. This statement does not conflict with the absence of a gap and, in fact supports the literal six day creation without compromising the text. God formed it to be inhabited ... but at the point in time of Genesis 1:2 ... He was not finished with His awesome creation.

Tohu Va Bohu

tohu--(Strong's 8414)--"wasteness...that which is wasted, laid waste...hence...a desert...destruction... emptiness, vanity...something vain...nothing..."(H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p.857)

tohu--(Strong's 8414)--"from an unused root mean[ing] to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; fig. a worthless thing; adv. in vain..." (James Strong, The New Strong's Concordance of the Bible, sect. Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, p.150)

tohu--(Strong's 8414)--"formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

  • a) formlessness (used of primeval earth); nothingness, empty space

  • b) what is empty or unreal (used of idols) (figurative)

  • c) wasteland, wilderness (used of solitary places)

  • d) place of chaos

  • e) vanity (Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Lexicon)

bohu --(Strong's 922)-- "emptiness, voidness...something void and empty..." (Gesenius, p.104)

Some people use Isaiah 45:18 as an argument for the use of "became" in Genesis 1:2. In this verse, Isaiah says that God created the earth not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. The word "in vain" is the same as tohu; that is, the same word translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2. So "gap" theorists say that since God did not create it that way, it must have become that way. But lets review with the significance of CONTEXT. In Isaiah, the context requires the use of the translation "in vain". That is, God did not create the earth without a purpose (in vain or in vanity); He created it to be inhabited. Genesis 1 tells us then how He brought form to the unformed earth and inhabitants to the empty earth. It was not really finished until He said so at the end of the six days of creation.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:18)

The Gap Theorists will tell you to look at Jeremiah 14 where tohu va bohu (without form and void) is also used - so lets not disappoint them.

"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein. And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life. For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, 'Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.'" (Jeremiah 4:23-31)

We will allow Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis to offer his answer to this comparison:

"This delightful pair of words is usually translated 'formless and empty'; they imply that the original world was created unformed and unfilled and was, during six days, formed and filled by God's creative actions. Gappists claim that these very words imply a process of judgmental destruction, and thus point to a sinful, and therefore not an original, state of the earth. This relies upon importing into Ge 1:1-31 interpretations found in other parts of the Old Testament (namely, Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23). Tohu and bohu appear together in only the three above mentioned places in the Old Testament, but tohu appears alone in a number of others. In these, the simple meaning common to them all is 'formless'. The word itself does not tell us about the cause of formlessness; this has to be gleaned from the context. Isa 45:18 (often quoted by gappists) is rendered in the King James Version '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 that He should be their God and they should be His people. Isaiah draws an analogy with God's purpose in creation: He did not create the world in order for it to be empty! No, He created it to be formed and filled, a suitable abode for His people. Gappists are missing 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. Isa 45:18 is talking about God's purpose in creating, not about the original state of the creation." (Ken Ham, Dr. Andrew Snelling, B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., Dr. Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S., The Answers Book, chapter 9)

The Hebrew language, again, steps up to break the imagined 'tie' and declare the biblical young earth view as the only possible answer. The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible says:

The Old Scofield Bible [commentary notes] maintains that the condition of the earth in verse two is the result of judgment, and therefore interprets the verb hayah ([Strong's #]1961) as 'became.' However, the Hebrew construction of verse two is disjunctive, describing the result of the creation described in verse one. The phrase 'without form and void' is often misunderstood because of this rendering. These words are found only in a few other places (Is 34:11; 45:18; Jer 4:23). They do not describe chaos, but rather emptiness. A better translation would be 'unformed and unfilled.' " (Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, p.2, Gen 1:2 fn)

A Closer Look At The Hebrew Construction

The following expert witnesses offer the unadulterated proof that the original language allows no room for a 'gap' to exist.

That the first v. of Genesis teaches that the original creation of the world in its rude, chaotic state was from nothing, while in the remainder of the chapter, the elaboration and distribution of matter thus created is taught, the connection of the whole section shows sufficiently clearly. (Pearson, An Exegetical Study of Genesis 1:1-3, p.22, citing W. Gesenius, Thesaurus Hebr. et Chald., I, p.236a)

"The most straightforward reading of the verses sees Gen 1:1 as a subject-and-verb clause, with Gen 1:2 containing three 'circumstantial clauses'--that is, three statements describing the circumstances attending what is described by the principal clause (Gen 1:1). This conclusion is reinforced by the grammarian Gesenius, who says that the conjunction waw ("and") at the beginning of Gen 1:2 is a 'waw copulative', which compares with the old English expression 'to wit'. [Gesenius thus suggested a rendering as such: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. To wit, 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."] This grammatical connection between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 rules out the gap theory, because Gen 1:2 is in fact a description of the state of the originally created earth." (Ken Ham, Dr. Andrew Snelling, B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., Dr. Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S., The Answers Book, chapter 9)

"...1:2a is a noun clause used circumstanially, making or expressing the circumstances concomitant to the principal statement. The translation is best conveyed by: 'Now, the earth was without form and void.' The original Gap Theory can be proved or disproved merely on the basis of what type of clauses these are in verse 2. This means that 1:2 is a description of the earth as it was created originally, not how it became at a time subsequent to creation. The circumstantial clause and the waw disjunctive also demonstrate this point. The Septuagint indicates the disjunctive by de in 1:2; 2:6, 10, and 12. In all four cases it describes the preceding conditions. In other words, the initial creation was formless and empty, a condition soon remedied. The phrase means that at this point in God's creative activity the earth was yet unfashioned and uninhabited (note in Isa 45:18 where it says, 'he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited')." (The Complete Bible Commentary, Nelson Publishing, p.13,14, note for Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and void)

In a poll of 20 leading Hebrew scholars regarding a "gap" between 1:1 & 1:2, they responded unanimously, "NO." (Modern Science And Christian Faith, p.49).

Created (bara), Made (asah), Formed (yatsar)

Another "proof" offered is usually an effort at creating an impassable distinction between the words "create" and "made" as found in the first chapter of Genesis. The contention being that only the word "create" (bara in Hebrew) can mean to call forth out of nothing and subsequently the words "make' or "form" (asah in Hebrew) must be interpreted to mean a re-fashioning or making from pre-existing material. It is presumed, by the gap theory, that this pre-existent material is the substance, or debris remaining after the earth underwent the judgmental action we have describe earlier. While it is true that the two words in question are different and can have distinct, separate meanings, they also are used synonymously throughout the Scriptures. In fact "bara" is not always used to describe a calling forth out of nothing. The word is used in Isaiah 65:18 in reference to a restored Jerusalem and not the original creation of that city. The distinction made, in support of the gap, is artificial and strained to say the least. That the two words are used to express the same concept in regard to God's creative abilities can be seen by comparing Genesis 1:1, which uses "bara" with the following verses (all KJV) which use "asah."

Genesis 1:31; 2:2-4; Exodus 20:11; II Kings 19:15; II Chronicles 2:12; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 33:6; 96:5; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5; 146:6; Proverbs 8:26; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Isaiah 37:16; 44:24; 45:12, 18; Jeremiah 10:12; 27:5; 32:17; 51:15

The twenty six verses listed above all use the word "asah" (make) not "bara" (create) to describe the same actions of God that are declared in Genesis 1:1, where "bara" is used. As you read these verses you will note that the majority of the cited passages refer explicitly and pointedly to the "making" of the heavens as declared in the Genesis 1:1 account. Clearly the two words are synonymous when used to describe God"s creative acts. The two words in question, "create" and "make," are also used with the same intent and meaning when animals and man are formed. Compare Genesis 1:21 with 1:25, and then 1:26 with 1:27. One cannot argue that the 1:21 verse only pertains to "conscious life," inasmuch as the physical bodies of the animals are also included in the stated act. Thus it is impossible to conclude that there is sufficient distinction between "bara" and "asah" so as to interpret the latter in a sense that restricts it to only meaning a "re-forming" in the Genesis narrative. Either word can, and is used to describe God"s creative acts "ex nihilo."

Gap Theorists make a false distinction between "created" (bara) & "made" (asah), such as: Bara refers to things created from nothing (Genesis 1:1), while asah refers to that which was made or reformed from previously existing material (Exodus 20:11).

Let us take a deeper look into this matter to prove all things. Along with bara and asah, we shall also examine another Hebrew word, yatsar, generally translated "formed."

bara--(Strong's 1254)-- "TO CUT, TO CARVE OUT, TO FORM BY create, to be form, to fashion..." (H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p.138)

asah--(Strong's 6213)--"TO LABOR, TO WORK ABOUT make, to produce by create, as heaven, earth..." (Gesenius, p.657)

yatsar--(Strong's 3335)--"TO FORM, TO FASHION, as a potter, clay...Often used of God as the be formed, created..." (Gesenius, p.361)

"And God said, Let Us make [asah] man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created [bara] man in His own image, in the image of God created [bara] He him; male and female created [bara] He them." (Genesis 1:26,27)

"And the LORD God formed [yatsar] man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

"Know ye that the LORD He is God: it is He that hath made [asah] us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture." (Psalm 100:3)

"I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by My name: for I have created [bara] him for My glory, I have formed [yatsar] him; yea, I have made [asah] him." (Isaiah 43:6,7)

As God's Word concludes, man was created, made, and formed. This alone proves that "bara" CANNOT refer exclusively to creation out of nothing---for while the Word says that man was created, it also says that he was formed from the dust of the ground.

Note that this is the same with other living creatures God made:

"And God created [bara] great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Gen 1:21)

"And God made [asah] the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Gen 1:25)

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed [yatsar] every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Gen 2:19)

Also, this is true of the whole heavens and earth:

"For thus saith the LORD that created [bara] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [asah] it; he hath established it, he created [bara] it not in vain, he formed [yatsar] it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:18)

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made [asah]; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made [asah]. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made [bara and asah]. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that the LORD God made [asah] the earth and the heavens." (Genesis 2:2-4)

As we have seen thus far, God created/made/formed the heavens and the earth over a period of six days. It was not an immediate creation, followed by a later Luciferic destruction and a new creation over a six day period--but rather, it was as the Word says:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11; see also Exodus 31:17)

"Heaven" here, by the way, does include outer space (even the entire universe) -- for it was on day four of the creation that the sun, moon, and stars were made--Gen 1:14-19--as Gen 2:4 says above, these are the generations (these things spoken of in this account of Moses) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. (The Creator was Himself the original light shining on the surface of the spinning earth before the sun was installed.)

Anyone who still contends that asah refers only to reformed materials, and not to things created anew, must then concur that the whole universe was "re-created" or "re-constructed," for the Scripture states: "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made [asah] heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." (Nehemiah 9:6) [The term "heaven" here most assuredly does not refer to the earth's atmosphere, for it states that God made (asah) the heavens wherein the stars (host) exist.]

"God...Which maketh [asah] Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south." (Job 9:2,9) [Arcturus (also rendered "the Bear"--anciently known as "the Greater Sheepfold"), Orion, and Pleiades, (all of which are also mentioned in Job 38:31,32) are stars of the heavens.]

Such a conclusion flies in the face of the Gap Theorists' claim that the "damaged" heavenly bodies we see are proof of a "war in the heavens."


Part of the Gap Theory includes the belief that Satan and his angels fought a war in the heavens against Michael and the angels of God (as in Rev 12), prior to Gen 1:2--the "real Star Wars," they say---the craters are there in the various celestial bodies due to the angels hurdling one another into these planets and moons. Yet, as evidenced above, the heavens (sun, moon, stars, etc.) were not yet in existence prior to day four of the creation account of Genesis 1. Therefore, it could not have occurred as they hypothesize. Plus, as also shown above, the very idea that we can see "evidence" of the war (i.e. craters, etc) contends with the Gap Theory argument that asah refers only to things reconstructed--for if this is the case, then in light of Nehemiah 9:6 and Job 9:9, 38:31,32 which speak of God making (asah) the heaven of heavens and the hosts of heaven, there should be no evidence of such a war--for all was "re-made"!!


Many Gapists also hold to a belief that this alleged "first" earth of Gen 1:1, was destroyed in this alleged war. They point to a Scripture in 2 Peter 3, which speaks of "the world that then was being overflowed with water" as proof of a "Luciferic Flood." Is that what Peter was referring to? Let us examine it in context:

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep [died], all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 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: [God separated the waters from the waters in Gen 1:6-7-- this is the pre-flood world! See also Psalm 24:1-2 and Psalm 136:5-6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: [the Noachian flood destroyed the existing world] 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. [In conformance with God's promise to Noah (Gen 9:11), this post-flood earth is scheduled for its end by fire rather than by water.] (2 Peter 3:3-7)

Peter was clearly referring to the flood of Noah's day. In fact, he had just addressed the Noachian Flood in the previous chapter of his epistle (II Pet. 2:5).

These Scriptures tie in with what is said by Jesus in Mt 24:37-39: "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came [as Peter wrote: they were willingly ignorant], and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

"Fill" OR "Replenish"

Another "proof text" of this alleged "Luciferic flood" is found in Genesis. It is generally stated as follows:

"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Gen 9:1)

After the flood of Noah's day, when he, his wife, his sons and their wives got out of the ark, God said unto him, "BE FRUITFUL, MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH" He was told to refill and remultiply life on earth because it was destroyed with a flood. Do you not find this interesting that these are the EXACT words that God spoke to Adam and Eve?

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen 1:28)

He told Adam and Eve to REPLENISH the earth. Was God mistaken? Should he not have said, "plenish"? No, God was not mistaken and he said to ADAM and EVE, "Replenish the earth," exactly like he told Noah. Could there possibly have been a flood BEFORE Adam and Eve that caused them also to "REPLENISH"?

Is this argument truly Scriptural? Is "replenish" even the proper translation? Notice that this very phrase was used earlier in the Genesis account:

"And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." (Gen 1:22)

The Hebrew word translated "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 and 9:1 is male. Take note that the translators of the Authorized Version (KJV), translated male here in Genesis 1:22 as "fill." Which translation is correct?

male/mala--(Strong's 4390)--"TO FILL, TO MAKE fill, as anything does a vacant space with its own bulk or fill a place with pour into, to put into..." (H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p.474)

"And blessed them God, and said unto them God: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every beast that creeps upon the earth." (Gen 1:28 George Ricker Berry, A New Old Testament--The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament)

"God blessed them, God said to them: Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth and subdue it! Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the heavens, and all living things that crawl about upon the earth!" (Gen 1:28 Five Books of Moses, Schocken Bible Vol.1)

"And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over all living things creeping on the earth." (Gen 1:28 J.P. Green, The Interlinear Bible)

As Gesenius and the above translations (as well as KJV's own translation of Genesis 1:22) show, male is to be correctly rendered as "fill."

Earth's Dominion--To Whom Was it Given?

Many believe the theory that "Lucifer" ("Heylel," as the Hebrew says)--Satan--was given dominion over this "first" earth by God. Does this theory concur with Scripture? Who does Scripture record this dominion over the earth being given to?

God had given the earth to Adam and Eve to rule as we can read in Genesis 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:27,28)

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet"(Psalm 8:4-6)

Scripture reports that Adam was given dominion over the earth and all that in it is. Then how did Satan get the control of man's kingdoms as shown in Luke 4:5,6?

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power [authority] will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. (Luke 4:5,6)

Read and consider Genesis chapter three, while keeping this tidbit in mind: "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey..." (Rom 6:16)

Now, who did our forefather Adam yield himself to? The world became Satan's when Adam and Eve gave it to him by following him rather than the instruction of God. Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? They became the devil's servants by obeying him, thusly; making him their Overlord. Therefore, Adam gave the dominion he received of God over to his "new master."

Furthermore, if this pre-creation rebellion of Satan occurred during this gap of time doesn't it contradicts God's description of His completed creation on day six as all being "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Doesn't the theory's timing of the division of Satan's angels from God's angels negate that fact that "the morning stars sang TOGETHER, and ALL the sons of God (bene elohim) shouted for joy?"

Job 38:4-9 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, Compare to the identical timing in: 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.

Though there are many good Bible believing Christians who accept the Gap Theory, there are some serious problems with this point of view that should make it difficult, or truly impossible, to accept.

Here is a brief recap of a few of the problems with the gap theory that we covered today:

There also exist many proven scientific evidence that we mention for your own study if you need more proofs: The decaying magnetism of earth (earth couldn'y have supported life millions of years ago- impossible!), the moon's steady distancing further from the earth (whoch means it was once closer -and since it influence oceanic tides even one million years is impossible), the diminishing sun (losing matter and would be gone), Some evidences From Biology include such as the current population of earth 5.5 billion could easily be generated from eight survivors of the Flood in less than 4000 years; The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old; The oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old.)

We feel we have not neglected to tell you all the TRUTH from God's Word and stand innocent before all men. We must rely on the bibles infallibility for doctrine or else we deny our entire faith. II Timothy 3:16 states " all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness ." Today, we have read solid basic truths of scripture that should make true believers REJECT the Gap theory and its evolutionary trappings. What will YOU do? Who will you believe? Who will you glorify? We serve a mighty God who is awesome in power and sovereign above all. We will believe His Word!

Before "gapists" add millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 they may wish to consider a warning given in Revelation 22:18 " And if any man shall add unto these things , God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book ". -Prove all things !!

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.


Offsite article: "How old is the earth?"