new subscriber

Rodney K. Duke dukerk at
Sun Nov 28 15:31:38 EST 1999


Dear Mr. Miles,

I agree with the others that your tone has been inappropriate.  It is not only offensive, but also a
poor witness of the faith you profess.  Also,  Ian quoted a couple of the ancient witnesses below
and you failed to respond.  However, I will take your request seriously and attempt a response.

Arguments against the gap theory:

1) It is eisegesis.  The text in Genesis 1:1-3 does not mention a gap.  It does not refer to Satan
and fallen angels.  It does not say that the cosmos was created a second time.  The gap theory
starts with a THEORY and reads that theory into the text, a procedure which is opposed to the
authority of scripture.  (The fact that you cite Jer 4:23 in connect with Gen 1 leads me to wonder
if you started with commentary/notes from Schofield.)

2) The waw introducing verse 2 is not used to introduce independent sequential clauses, so verse 2
is not a separate action in a sequence of 3 actions (i.e. NOT: God created and God judged and God

3) In terms of discourse analysis the construction of verse 2, an X-qatal, is offline and often used
for scene setting, not for advancing the main narrative.

4) The argument in the gap theory that compares the use of tohu wabohu in Gen 1 to Jer 4 is based on
a non sequitur.  Jer 4:23-26 shows a reversal of creation to chaos, a dismantling of creation.  But
it does not follow logically that the precreative state of " tohu wabohu" was a result of judgment.
That is eisegesis.

5) Stylistically the structure of: a) summary introduction -vs 1, b) circumstances before the main
action - vs 2, and c) beginning of main action - vs 3,  is a good narrative introduction of which
other examples can be observed at Gen 2:4-7 and 18:1-2.  Moreover, many biblical narratives,
sometimes not having a summary introduction, still start with a statement of circumstances before
the main action (e.g. 3:1) as do the ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies to which the Genesis account
might have been a polemic.

If you think that such arguments against the gap theory are somehow "liberal," please see _Creation
and Chaos_ by Dr. Bruce K. Waltke (Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974) who, at the time of
publication, was the director of the doctoral program and Chairman of the Dept. of Semitics and OT
at Dallas Theological  Seminary.


> Subject: Re: New Subscriber
> From: "Michael Miles" <michaelwm at>
> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:27:06 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 8
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 at>
> To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew at>
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: New Subscriber
> > >if you believe it to be possible to do so.  If not, then
> > >take it as a sermon and learn from it.
> >
> > This sort of stuff is rather presumptuous and would have been better
> omitted.
> >
> >
> >
> Prove it wrong or be silent on what you know not of.  If you're such a
> "scholar" in the original tongues, then prove it wrong.  If you merely take
> a flippant attitude and pigeonhole me as a preacher, then you do all the
> world a disservice in not showing them that you can prevail over a lowly
> one, such as myself.  Prove what I stated as wrong; or is it that you are
> UNABLE to do so?  Prove it to be presumtuous, as you stated it was.  Or do
> you make it a habit of labeling things that you do not understand?
> As far as the topic being BIBLICAL Hebrew, I feel it correct to have brought
> forth the FACTS that I did.  If you'd care to discuss perhaps COMIC BOOK
> Hebrew, then perhaps there's a place for that elsewhere.
> Regards,
> Michael

Rodney K. Duke
Dept. of Phil. & Rel., Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC 28608
(O) 828-262-3091, (FAX) 828-262-6619, dukerk at

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list