Preface

This book in its entirety is a book of models. There are approximately

five biblical models for Creation—three are Old Earth and two are Young
Earth. Out of all the models, only one is complete from the standpoints of
theology and geology. The model that I will represent in this book is
called the Gap Theory Model of Creation. Those that will be refuted will
be the two Young-Earth models; namely, the Six-Day Universal Creation
Theory and the Frame Theory.

The Gap Theory has subconsciously been on trial in the past one-hundred
years by the Young Earth Creation Science Movement (YECSM). During
this time, the YECSM has falsely accused, condemned, minimized, and
misrepresented the Gap Theory in almost every book they published.
Having seen a window of opportunity for the Gap Theory to have its day
in court, I have chosen to break my years of silence and write its appeal in
a new era.

Although this defense started out as a few questionable and doubted ideas
on a piece of paper, it has forced me to venture into many mind-arresting
fields of study and, for the past two decades has become one of my life’s
passions. During this journey, I have abstained from books that were
complete works on the Gap Theory because I wanted to arrive at my own
conclusions, and my discovery to lead wherever truth demanded.

The 21st Century has brought new ideas, science, and discovery to the
playing field of Biblical Geology than perhaps what was popular in the
days of Chalmers and Larkin. Because of this, it is necessary that a new
model is penned for the Gap Theory, having some old and new truths that
are relevant and support this new evidence and era.

The biggest adversary to the biblical narrative of creation is concealed

under the guise of the Young Earth Creation Science Movement
(YECSM). Although the roots this movement’s roots are grounded in the
visions of Ellen White, leader of the 7th Day Adventist Cult, they have
now become the accepted paradigm of creation by the average Christian.

Outside the Church, the YECSM rage the battle with the intellectual
communities of our day. Believing in a six-thousand-year-old universe,
their movement must put all catastrophic and geologic events of the
earth’s history in Noah’s Flood. Why the flood of Noah? Because
without the Gap Theory, there is no other global event—scripturally
speaking—that the Young-Earthers can place the earth’s geologic epochs.
This is where they take their tremendous leap into correcting all the
science, geology, rock formation, stratigraphy, meteorology, obliquity,
oceanography, astrometry, physics, etc., of the world.

This leap drives a great wedge between Christianity and the intellectuals
of our day. They are asking the intellectuals to drop everything they have
learned, and embrace a teaching which is unscriptural and does not have a
complete and functioning model.

To validate the Gap Theory as the Biblical Narrative of Creation, we must

expose the subtle errors in the YECSM’s propaganda. Revealing these
misrepresentations of truth permeating in our Christian theology (the Fall
of Man, Origin of Sin, Angels, Creation, Salvation, and Biblical
Chronology) will enforce the importance of the material found in these
pages. This appeal will prove the guilt of dishonest influence,
misrepresenting of Scripture from a dogmatic view of a 6,000 year-old
universe, and Young Earth bias. This will be revealed through a unique
catch 22 approach; exposing that one thing they supposedly believe tears
down another. Although the evidence they present within a narrow subject
may deem their teaching truthful or possible, it is on the broader spectrum
of how everything interconnects that categorically collapses every major
belief they have in the viewpoint of Creation being young.

Inside the Church, the leaders of the YECSM are prone to supplant the
Gap Theory view of Creation without thoroughly explaining to their
followers from a sound theological basis why it is weak, contradictory,
and compromising. Regardless, it continues to stand the test of
intellectual growth in Geology and many of its branching fields.

In a court of law, the defendant has to be present in order to be charged.

He must be given the right to a defense of his choosing. This defense
consists of an attorney, the law, and if he is bold enough, he can also take
the stand and defend himself. Nobody gets to be both prosecutor and
judge! Yet, this is exactly the case with the YECSM. They are both
prosecuting and condemning the Gap Theory in a kangaroo court.
Therefore, everyone in the YECSM owes the Gap Theory a fair and
unbiased hearing.

In these pages, we will enter the heavenly courtroom, and the thoughts and
ideas in this book will be the defense attorney for the Gap Theory. We
will finally pull a very bold move on the Gap Theory’s part calling it to
the stand and answer on its own behalf the relevant courses of study that it
is accused of mishandling – whether science, astrometry, geology,
mountain ranges, deserts, craters, the Ice Age, dinosaurs, fossils, the
geologic column, grammar, doctrine, historicity, etc.

Feel free to start at any chapter in the book after reading chapter 1. Each
chapter can stand on its own merit. I hope you highly consider these
presentations as the Gap Theory takes the stand.

Daniel G. McCrillis
 13

Chapter 1
A Debated Introduction to the Gap Theory

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an
answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you
with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they
speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse
your good conversation in Christ.” 1st Pet. 3:15-16

Young-Earth Beliefs in Creation

Brewing in the background of this age of apostasy stirs one of the most
debatable topics in theological and scientific history. This confrontation
concerns the age of the earth and the question, “Is the earth old or young?”
remains in the philosophical shadow of the scientific and religious world.
The debate of Young-Earth versus Old-Earth is more pointedly, in the
circle of theology, the Frame Theory versus the Gap Theory.

Perhaps the most popular movement to rise within the Christian ranks in
the 20th Century has been the Young Earth Creation Science Movement
(abbr. YECSM). Although its origin was from the visions of Ellen White,
the leader of the Seventh Day Adventist Movement, it has flourished in
almost all church denominations. It is nearly impossible to not find a
Christian bookstore with their material on the shelves. Their footprint is
on the web with thousands of sites, blogs, and articles, and their museums
are going up throughout the country. Never, in the history of the Church,
has it been so highly involved in the Young Earth Creation Science.

The YECSM views Genesis chapter one primarily two different ways.
First, they claim that God made the universe as a carpenter would go to
the lumber store to gather materials to build a house. This is called the
Frame Theory view of creation. This is how they accommodate for
materials in Genesis 1:2 prior to the Six Day Narrative. The Young-
Earthers believe that the word “was” in Genesis 1:2 indicates that God
created the earth without form and void in verse one and then decorated it
in the six days. It is a theory because they are trying to infer why there are
materials in verse two before the first day began in verse three.
14

Secoond, Youngg-Earth view w of creation we’ve entitled “thhe Six-Day

Univversal Creattion Theory.” This vieew holds thhat the entirre material
univverse was all created durring the six days
d of Gennesis chapter one. That
incluudes the Heaaven where God dwells, the angels,, the earth, the t planets,
the MMilky Way Galaxy, milllions of othher galaxies,, star clusterrs, nebulas,
quassars, supernoovas, the trillions of starrs in space and
a the manyy unknown
deepp-field objectts yet to be discovered
d b James Weebb Space Teelescope.
by

Geneesis 1:1 Intro

oductory Claause or Liteeral Accountt
Geneesis 1:1 is the only veerse in the Bible that says God created c the
mateerial universe. This versse is made out
o to be an introductoryy clause or
stateement by the Young g-Earthers, thus, elimiinating it for literal
interrpretation. The
T differencce between thet Frame Theory
T and thhe Six-Day
Univversal Creatiion Theory is that the latter
l infers that both Genesis
G 1:1
and 1:2 are an introductory y statementt, whereas thet former only o infers
versee one. Theese two view ws are the common theeories held within the
Seveenth Day Addventist Movement andd the YECSM M. When putting
p this
reasooning into a visual, we have
h a chart with an infinnite top funnneled down
into a very smalll point.

The Two Basic Approaches of the Young-Earth View

If veerse one is an introduction, then thhere is an apparent
a prooblem with
versee two being between thee supposed introductoryy sentence annd the first
day of creation in
i verse threee. This is where
w a catcch 22 comess in for the
YEC CSM. A catch 22 is deffined as a “pproblematic situation forr which the
onlyy solution is denied by a circumstannce inherentt in the probblem or by
 15

rule;; also: the circumstancce or rule that

t denies a solution.””1 Young
o of two things conccerning the Genesis 1
Earthhers will eiither teach one
origiins. Either everything in the univverse was created in thhe Six-Day
Narrrative or Godd brought the materials together
t firstt in verse tw
wo. Both of
thesee views aree contrary one
o to the other. Thiis question cannot be
answwered logicallly without contradicting
c g other posittion.

The Frame Theeory must allow a

for mmore than the t six dayss. If
they hold to six days only, then
they have a probblem with verse v
two and need to explain why
theree is time, space, maatter,
lightt, etc., prior to
t the first day.
d

Oncee one findss out what they

belieeve in this area, then they
can bbe confined in their sysstem.
For iinstance, theey cannot usee the
Fram me Theoryy to exp plain
Geneesis 1:1-2 annd then, laterr on,
use verses like Exodus 20 0:11,
For in six days the LORD
“F
made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is,” for their
suppport. There isi no way onne could honnestly believee in a six-day universal
“aall that in them is,” and also advocate for materiaals being maade prior to
day oone.
Old Earth Beliefs
Otheer than the two
t Young--Earth viewss of creationn, there are three Old-
Earthh views. Thhey are:

1) T
The Gap Theeory belief teaches that everything was w created in Genesis
1:1, as stated in the Bible. The
T Gap Theeory definess the undefinned amount
of tim
me betweenn Genesis 1:1 and 1:3. Gap Theoriists reject thhe views of
the Y
YECSM andd hold the beelief that the earth is reprresented in Genesis
G 1:2
as beeing in a prooblematic and chaotic staate. The reason for the chaos
c is the
view
w that Satann led a rebeellion againsst God on and a or from m the earth
(Isaiah 14), in which,
w the eaarth was a by-product
b o wrath describing the
of

1
https://www.merriiam-webster.co
om/dictionary/ccatch-22
16

withhout form annd void cond dition of Geenesis 1:2. This

T is when and why
the eearth was innitially madee subject to vanity (Rom mans 8:20). The Gap
Theoory holds thhe position th hat the Six-DDay Narratiive of Geneesis chapter
one iis actually a reconstructtion from thee judgment of Genesis 1:21 arguing
that the words let,
l made, form,
f and crreate are disstinct from each other
withh differences in meaning and interpreetation.
The Theistic Evolution Theory
2) Th T belieef teaches that each day in the Six-
Day Narrative canc be repressented by a long periodd of time but also adds
the bbelief of evoolution. Theeistic Evoluttion holds thhat God usedd evolution
to deevelop the sppecies on ou
ur planet—inncluding mann.
3) Th
The Day-Agee Theory belief teaches that t each dayy of creationn is equated
to a long period of time (i.e. Progressive Creation). This theoryy holds the
belieef that eachh day is reppresented byy periods longer than tw wenty-four
hourrs which maay have overlapped eachh other. Thhus, the seven days of
Geneesis one mayy equal 7,000 0 years or seeven ages off an undefineed length.

Wheen the Old-E Earth believeers were tolld that God created eveerything by
way of Evolutioon, that the six days in Genesis onne were ages, and that
theree was a gapp of undefiined length between veerse one annd three of
Geneesis chapter one, they seeparated in theory
t but stayed
s unitedd in Christ.
On tthe other haand, the YE ECSM is noot divided yet, y even thhough their
belieefs contradicct each otherr under everyy topic of theeir movemennt.

Takee the subjectt of dinosaurrs for instancce. Here wee find that thhe YECSM
holdd four differeent positions: 1) dinosaurrs shrunk aft
fter the canoppy collapse
and are now lizaards, 2) they y died shortlyy after the Flood
F in an Ice
I Age, 3)
they are still aroound in the same size, but
b just so fewf in numbber that we
 17

woulld hardly finnd one, andd 4) they alll died in thee Flood. Thhis is what
bringgs us to thhe Genesis 1:1 controvversy. This festering controversy
c
betw
ween the YE ECSM and the Gap Thheory is duue to the fact that the
funddamental teacchings of eaach are by naature, pitted against the other. The
contrroversy is so
s evident thatt the YE ECSM takess every opportunity to
demiise the Gap Theory,
T andd likewise, thhe Gap Theory, the YEC CSM.

Fromm the first verse

v in the Bible, we discover
d thaat this debatte exists in
everyy facet of thhe verse. Thhe only creattional and Bible-believin
B ng position
that literally believes in a Genesis 1:11 account of o creation is i the Gap
Theoory. Day-Aggers, Theisttic Evolutioonists, and the YECSM M, (Frame
Theoorists and Six-Day
S Unniversal Creeationists) all
a have a hard time
accepting a Geneesis 1:1 acco ount of creattion.

It is hard for thee Evolutionists because they deny “in

“ the beginnning God”
and hold to “inn the begin nning the Big
B Bang.” Theistic Evvolutionists
strugggle with Genesis
G 1:1 because theey also view w each day as a long
periood of time— —holding thee opinion thhat Genesis 1:1 is an inntroductory
versee.It is hard for the “Daay-Agers” beecause they hold that thhe six days
weree the beginnning (each daay being a long
l period of time)—G Genesis 1:1
beingg an introdductory clau use. The YECSM
Y folllows suit—
—holding a
posittion that Genesis 1:1 is an introducctory statemeent concerniing the rest
of thhe chapter. Thus, we can c easily see
s that the only Bibliccal view of
18

Creation which actually teaches a literal account of creation in Genesis 1:1

is the Gap Theory Model. Is Genesis 1:1 nothing more than an
introductory statement? Is Genesis 1:2 creation prior to the Six-Day
Narrative? Does the Six-Day Narrative contain the creation of the
material universe?

The Gap Theory in Light of Theory and

Distinguished from Hypothesis
The Gap Theory has been attacked by the YECSM advocates based on the
word theory. Historically, the origin of the term Gap Theory was nothing
more than a knee-jerk response to the Darwinian Evolution attacks against
the Biblical Narrative of creation in the latter part of the 19th and early part
of the 20th Centuries. However, as this book will prove, its teachings were
the historical narrative of creation from the earliest of times. According to
Mr. Webster, “a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles
which have been established on independent evidence.”2 “Inferences are
truths drawn from another which are admitted or supposed to be true.
Inferences result from reasoning, as when the mind perceives such a
connection between ideas, as that, if certain propositions called premises
are true, the conclusions or propositions deduced from them must also be
true.”3

During the creation debates that went on for decades in the colleges of
America and Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries between the
Evolutionists and the Christian Church, Ellen White claimed to have had
visions from God. These visions formed a creation model based on
extreme hypotheticals which, unlike the Gap Theory Model, have no
scientific basis. A hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for
certain phenomena and has no other evidence of its truth.4 Most
Christians today do not know that this new model was contrary to the
Church’s paradigm school of thought held for 1,800 years.

During these debates, Biblicists of the 19th and 20th centuries proclaimed
several old-earth theories from Scripture that could accommodate for an
older age of the earth, but the Gap Theory, unlike any other, rose to the top
in the realm of theology, accommodating several scientific and geological

2
Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (PO Box 27035, San Francisco, CA 94127:
Foundation for American Christian Education, 1999), Vol. II 92.
3
Ibid., Vol. I 109
4
Ibid.
 19

factss. On the contrary,

c thee Young-Eaarth models seemed to ignore the
etym
mology of thee sacred textts and contraadict the scieentific methood.

Regaardless of hoow one look ks at creation, he must have

h a propper order to
his beliefs: trutth, facts, and
a science come firstt, theory seecond, and
hypoothesis thirdd. For instaance, considder the phennomena of the earth’s
impaact craters, all
a of which need a logical theory as a to when inn time they
camee into existeence. Truth and fact declare that thhey do exist.. Does the
Biblee give any thheories of th
heir existence? Why, Hoow, and Wheen did they
happpen are annswered un nder the thheory and hypotheticcal aspect.
Conccerning theoory and the scientific metthod Psychoologist Adam
m Cash said
the ffollowing:

TThe vast majority of psychologist

p ts prefer to use the sccientific
mmethod whenn seeking tru uth because it’s seen as a fair and im
mpartial
pprocess. Whhen I do a research sttudy, I’m exxpected to outline
eexactly whatt I’m doing and what it is I claim to be lookiing for.
TThat way, if people wantt to try to prrove me wroong, they cann repeat
mmy work steep by step, and see if they get thhe same ressults. If
kknowledge iss based on authority
a alone, I can nevver be sure that
t the
information I receive is unbiasedd and trustw worthy. Whhen the
sscientific meethod is in place, a thheory that doesn’t mattch the
eempirical reesults experrienced in a research study is labeled
inaccurate. Time
T for a new
n theory! Scientists shhould never change
ttheir experim
mental dataa to match their origiinal theory; that’s
ccheating.5

The scientific method

m is ex
xplained in the
t followinng
six ppoints: 1) askk a question
n based on obbservation, 2)
2
makee a predictioon (hypothesis), 3) expeeriment – test
yourr hypothesis,, 4) observe what happens and gatheer
inforrmation, 5) draw concclusions aboout what yoou
discoovered, 6) share your fiindings and get the worrd
out tto others.
 
Everrything that exists does so in theeory, whetheer
provven scientiffically or not. W
Whether it’s
micrrowaves, electricity, oxy
ygen, or lightt; through sccience and obbservation,
5
Psycchology for Duummies, PsyD. Adam Cash, Published
P by Joohn Wiley & Sons,
S Inc.,
Hobooken, NJ, 2013.
20

we are able to philosophically conclude logical conclusions (theorize) for

all that is.

Although the YECSM is categorized into two basic creation theories (i.e.
the Six-Day Universal Theory and the Frame Theory), they have two
additional theories that must support the previous; namely, the Post-Fall
Reconstruction of Creation Theory (after Adam’s Fall) and the Noahic
Reconstruction of the Earth Theory (after Noah’s Flood). It is from these
four theories that their theories begin to multiply and bring confusion to
the Bible and the scientific world. Not only do they reveal many flaws,
contradictions galore, and lack sound theological emphasis, but have no
workable model.

Hints to the Gap Theory from the King’s English

1st Corinthians 3:2 “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for
hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” Simple-
ones seldom see or understand the following things that point to the Gap
Theory as they journey through Genesis the first several times:

Genesis 1:1 is the original creation of all matter and antimatter in the
material universe. In Genesis 1:2, the earth is in a chaotic state. Genesis
1:2 does not mention God creating the darkness. This darkness appears to
be local—being upon the face of the deep, not the universal absence of
light. The earth in Genesis 1:2 was completely submerged in water as it
was in Noah’s flood. Create, make, let, and formed are separate words
with distinct meanings. Adam was told to replenish the earth. Water is
seemingly created before the land. Darkness is present before Light. The
seed was in itself already present upon the earth, without having to be
created. There is light on day one before the Sun and Moon are supposedly
even created. There are two divisions of light and darkness in the first
chapter of Genesis. Everything was only good after God fixed everything
in its given day. The greater and lesser lights were made to rule and not
made as to their entity (v. 16). Heaven and earth were created in the day
(2:4) and not in the six days of Genesis chapter one. This must refer to the
eternal day before time, just as heaven will be after time ends. The only
true creative acts in the Six-Day Narrative were great whales, every living
creature that moves, fowl, beasts, and man. Genesis 2:4 informs us that the
heaven and earth have had two or more generations, just after the seventh
day. How can the heaven and earth be created “in the day” (2:4), when the
six-day-narrative reveals two separate days? To deny these points from
 21

the plain English and also defend the plenary and verbal inspiration of the
Bible is another catch 22. Genesis chapter one is a pillar of the Bible. It is
so vast and full of riches that after reading it several hundred times one
could still grasp new truths from its words.

Only the Gap Theory Properly Answers the Six-Day Narrative

Does the Bible actually say that the material universe was created in the
Six-Days of Genesis chapter one? The YECSM’s argument is that if
everything in heaven and earth was created in the Six-Days, how could
there have been anything created prior to? Not allowing room for any
other time frame, the Young-Earth creationists use verses like Exodus
20:11 to attack the Gap Theory. That verse says, “F 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.” On the surface this verse appears to support their view; thus,
they make this verse fit their belief by:

1) Inferring the definition of “made” to that of “create.” In the first

twenty chapters of Genesis, there are over fifteen references where the
underlying Hebrew word pronounced in English as aw-saw,
represented by the English word made reveals that whatever was made
came from pre-existing material (Genesis 3:21; 6:14; 6:15; 6:16; 7:4;
8:6; 11:4; 11:6; 12:2; 12:5; 13:4; 18:6; 18:7; 18:8; 19:3; 20:5; etc.).
Thus, the Six-Days were not a creation, but a making of what was
already in existence from the original creation in Genesis 1:1
(excluding that which pertained to life). This weighs heavily in favor
of the Gap Theory. Not one time does the English pronouncement of
the Hebrew word aw-saw indicate creation from nothing.
2) Ignoring the singular noun “heaven” (the atmosphere of the earth),
assuming it is referring to the heavens (indicating the universe and the
heaven where God dwells), thus, misrepresenting Scripture. However,
the Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint declines the noun ουρανον
[heaven] as masculine, accusative, singular; exactly what it is in the
King James Version.6

6
The Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint, Bernard A. Taylor, Zondervan Publishing
House, Grand Rapids MI, 1994.
22

MMany of thee New Age Versions

V haave heavens (plural), whhich allows
ffor the interrpretation th
hat God’s heeaven, the stellar
s heaveen, and the
aatmospheric heaven were all createdd in the Six-DDay Narrativve. This is
wwhat Ken Haam argues in n the following:

The phraase ‘heaven(ss) and earth’’ in Scripturee is an exam

mple
of a figurre of speech
h called a meerism, wheree two opposites
are combbined into ana all-encom mpassing sinngle concept, in
this case the totalityy of creatioon. A linguistic analysiss of
the wordds ‘heaven(ss) and earthh’ in Scriptuure shows that t
they refeer to the totality of all creation (thhe Hebrews did
not have a word for ‘universe’). Thus, there is no scriptuural
warrant for restrictting Exoduss 20:11 to earth and its
atmospheere or the solar
s system
m alone. So Exodus 200:11
does shoow that the whole uniiverse was created in six
ordinaryy days.7

AAs one can see,

s Mr. Ham m’s case is established
e c
completely o the word
on
hheavens beinng plural. Inn addition, thhe idea that “the Hebrews did not
hhave a wordd for univerrse” is arguumentative; for shâmayiim shâmeh
ggive that veryy intention in
i several plaaces (see Ps.. 8:3; 19:1; 50:6;
5 97:6).

7
Thee New Answerrs Book 1, Keen Ham, Chappter 8, “Couldd God really have created
everyything in six daays,” Master Bo
ooks, 2009.
 23

Furthermore, the totality of creation argument is completely

hypothetical.

The ancient Hebrew, unlike the Masoretic Hebrew, had no stems,

vowel points, accents, etc., making it virtually impossible to parse.
This is why we will make a small case for the Septuagint (LXX) in this
book.

The LXX was the great text of the Old Testament and was quoted
verbatim in over two-hundred and fifty New Testament references. It
was translated by 72 Jews which had the last remaining original
Hebrew Scroll (the Ezra Scroll) in around 283 B.C. At this time, the
Pentateuch was finished, and within a little more than 100 years the
remaining books of the Old Testament were completed. The LXX had
what the ancient Hebrew had, and the KJV carried that preservation
over accurately.
3) Changing the emphasis of context off of the Sabbath Day, to pivot a
time frame for creation.
4) Ignoring the fact that in the Six-Day Narrative, the Bible does not
mention the creation of the heaven (atmosphere), earth, or sea. Let’s
explain. The atmosphere of the earth was made (not created) when
God divided the waters from the waters in verse seven. In verse eight,
God names the expanse between the waters on the earth and the waters
in the canopy, “HHeaven.” It is also understood that the waters were
already in existence, God just called “tthe gathering together of the
waters…Seas,” in verse ten. The earth was already in existence is seen
in Genesis 1:1-2. In Genesis 1:9, we can easily see that the earth is
there, but submerged in water. Therefore, God brought the earth forth
from beneath the first recorded world flood of verse two in verse nine,
when he said, “llet the dry land appear.” See images below for
clarification.
24

No ddoubt the Six-Days are important inn many wayys. They aree important
in thhat God did not
n throw aw way the clayy after the deestruction in verse two.
Theyy are importtant in that God
G put life back on thee planet and made man
from
m the dust off the ground. They are im mportant, in that God innstituted his
lawss of motion, therm modynamics, entropy, gravity, processes,
phottosynthesis and
a the scien ntific methodd as we knoww it.

In ligght of this, the

t YECSM M teaches thaat God instittuted all of our
o present
lawss and processes after thee Fall of Maan, even thouugh the Biblle does not
menttion a Post-f -fall Reconsttruction of the
t Creationn anywhere. They also
teachh a Post-Noahic Flood Reconstructtion Theory,, that is not mentioned
in thhe Bible. Quuestion: Aftfter looking at the eviddence how can c one be
100%% sure that the Six-Day y Narrative ofo Genesis chapter
c one is a sound
theollogical founndation for when
w God created
c the material
m univverse from
nothhing to what we know off today?

Mr. Ham advoocates the Six-Day

S Unniversal Creeation Theoory in the
folloowing:
 25

Now consider Exodus 20:1 ‘and God spoke all these words,
saying’... What did He (Jesus) say? As we read on we find
this statement: ‘For in six days the Lord made the heavens
and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the
seventh day’ (Exodus 20:11)… Yes, Jesus did explicitly
say He created in six days…. Jesus said clearly that He
created in six days.8

What is odd is that the Six-Day Universal Creation Theory is defended in

two whole chapters in The New Answers Book 1; however, in other
portions of the same book, the author advocates the Young-Earth Frame
Theory, which says that God created several things in Genesis 1:2 prior to
the Six-Day Narrative. See below:

The words tohu and bohu, usually translated ‘formless and

void’ are used in Genesis 1:2. They imply that the original
universe was created unformed and unfilled and was,
during the six days, formed and filled by God’s creative
actions.9

How can one argue that everything was created in the Six-Day Narrative
and then turn around and argue that there was creation prior to the six
days? This is what is called an antilogy—a contradiction between any
words or passages in an author.10

The late Dr. Louis Talbot said,

The Bible does say that in six days the Lord “made” heaven
and earth, but there is a difference between the words
‘made’ and ‘created.’ To ‘create’ is to bring into existence
out of nothing. To ‘make’ is to take pre-existing matter and

8
The New Answers Book 1, Ken Ham, Chapter 20, “Did Jesus say He created in six
literal days,” Master Books, 2009.
9
Ibid. chapter 5, “What about the Gap an Ruin Reconstruction Theories?”
10
Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (PO Box 27035, San
Francisco, CA 94127: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1999), Vol. II 92.
26

change its form. The latter is what the Lord did in six
days.11

The Gap Theory in Light of Reason

Let’s listen to reason for a minute. We know that during the Six-Day
Narrative, God took that time to divide the waters from the waters, restore
the dry land to the surface, position the sun and moon and create fish,
fowl, whales, animals, and man. This six-day account does not mention
the many planets, moons, mountains, ecosystems, gasses, materials,
colors, rings, clouds, or uniqueness throughout the vast universe. With
this in mind, let us consider how long it would take to create the eighty
sextillion (80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars which are believed to be
out in space, according to NASA. If each of these stars had a solar system
with planets and moons, as our Sun, then there would be close to 3,040
sextillion planets and moons, which took that many days or more to create,
furnish, and put into motion. Reduced up to years, that would be a
minimum of 8,328,767,123,287,672,328,766 years of days to create and
make these systems alone, which are visible to us through telescopes. To
get a number of days, multiply the previous number by 365. This is
perhaps the YECSM’s greatest “out of sight, out of mind.”

Since they reject the Gap Theory, they must overlook and ignore hundreds
of additional issues that will be brought about in this book. Newer figures
for stars are saying that there are approximately 100 octillion stars12 which
are believed to be in space, according to Science and Astronomy.13 Now
we would have to take 100 billion stars multiplied by 10 billion galaxies,
multiplied by 365 days to compare what YECSM assumes took place in
the Six-Day Narrative.

Consider the following views, assumptions, and questions, and see if you
do not begin to see the relevancy of the Gap Theory. A. Young-Earthers
assume that God created all the materials from a chaotic mess in Genesis
1:2 then used those materials to make everything perfect in the Six-Days.
They assume that this was not just done on the planet earth but with the
entire material universe. B. They also assume the definitions of form, let,
make, and create in Genesis chapter one all mean the same thing. If they

11
Louis, Talbot, D.D., God’s Plan of the Ages, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids MI, 1936, pg 12.
12
100 Octillion is a 1 with 29 zeros behind it.
13
www.space.com
 27

would believe otherwise, they would have to ask questions, such as, why
didn’t God say created here, instead of let, made, or formed? C. They
assume that everything in the six days was a creation, when the only
things mentioned that were created were whales, fish, fowl, creeping
things, beasts of the field, and man. D. They assume verse one is an
introductory clause to the chapter and is not to be taken literally.

They duck the following questions. E. How could the heavens and earth
have generations in Genesis 2:4, if they are only a few days old? F. Why
was Adam told to “replenish” the earth in Genesis 1:28, if it had never
been populated before? G. Why is there seed in the earth before God had
to create it? H. Why is the earth without form and void in verse two? I.
Why was there darkness upon the face of the deep prior to their supposed
creation model? J. Why is there darkness before light? K. Why is there
light on day one before the sun and moon are supposedly created? L. Why
are there two divisions of light and darkness in 1:4 and in 1:14? M. Why
was water created before land? There had to be something to hold the
water. N. Why would God have to divide, separate, and make, if
everything was perfect from its original creation and form? O. Why does
the Bible infer that only after God made some things, allowed some
things, created some things, and divided some things, did he declare “it
was good?” This indicates that before God made, divided, allowed, and
created these things, they were probably not so good. Such is the case in
Genesis 1:2. Even after God made everything and said, “IIt was good,” he
changed his mind with man in Genesis 2:18. P. Why does the Six-Day
Narrative contradict Job 38? In the Six-Day Narrative, according to the
Young-Earth views, stars were created after the earth, but in Job 38, “tthe
morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” as
God laid the foundations of the earth.

Q. Since the YECSM is contrary to mainstream science, their followers

have to put all catastrophic and geologic events of the earth in the flood of
Noah. Why the flood of Noah? Without the Gap Theory, there is no other
global event, scripturally speaking, they can place the earth’s geological
epochs in. Thus they take their great leap into correcting all the science,
geology, meteorology, obliquity, oceanography, astrometry, physics, etc.,
of the world. Basically, they are asking the intellectuals to drop
everything they have learned and embrace a teaching which is unscriptural
and to date lacks a complete and functioning model. R. The Young-Earth
argument, and perhaps one of the biggest errors they propagate is that
28

since Noah’s flood was a global event, it must be assumed that it was a
total reconstruction of the earth there is too much geologic and scientific
evidence of this throughout the earth’s past. The catastrophic evidence
found in science and geology being shoved into Noah’s Flood is making
Christianity a hoax in the eyes of mainstream science and geology. At this
point YECSM doctrine ventures off the pages of the Bible and into
science, allowing the scholars of the world to criticize Christianity in one
of its core teachings (Creation).

For instance, with the Noahic flood account, If the devil can’t keep you
we know that it would be impossible for the from the Bible, he will
flood to be the cause of the extinction of work at changing the way
dinosaurs, planetary obliquities, solar impact you perceive the Bible.
craters, different water formed layers (flood
and shoreline) intermingled with windblown and desert-formed strata-
graphic rock layers. It is furthermore impossible that the formation of
deserts and mountain ranges were made in Noah’s Flood, yet this is what
the YECSM propagates without any textual proof or a complete and
functioning model. This will be proved extensively throughout this book.
S. They inadvertently teach that all death and sin originated with God or
man, and not Lucifer. T. They deify Adam’s pre-sin life. U. They insist
that the creation was only made subject to vanity after the fall of Adam,
even though there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17);
the knowledge of other demi-gods (Gen. 3:5); and a serpent (Gen. 3)
indwelt by the grandmaster of evil, the Devil himself (Rev. 20:2) before
man commits his first sin. V. They need hundreds of theories to answer
all the previously mentioned questions; however, all of them are answered
in the one Gap Theory Model. W. Why do the only things created in the
six days concern life? Isn’t it odd that if nothing was created outside of
the six days why not use the word create with everything? X. They twist
the following Scripture passages to fit into their views which we will
cover throughout this book: (1) Genesis 1:1-2:4, 17; (2) Genesis 3:13-24;
(3) Genesis chapters 7-9; (4) Job 38:4-7; (5) Job 40:15-24; (6) Job 41; (7)
Isaiah 14:12-17; (8) Isaiah 45:18; (9) Jeremiah 4:23-26; (10) Ezekiel
28:12-19; (11) Romans 5:12; (12) Romans 8:16-22; (13) Luke 10:18; (14)
2 Peter 3:3-8; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Psalms 8:3-8; 19:1-6; Proverbs 8:22-
31; John 1:1-5, 10; Acts 17:24-26; Colossians 1:15-18; Hebrews 1:1-12;
11:3; Revelation 4:11; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 46-48; Hebrews 2:14-15;
Matthew 25:41; Mark 10:6-9; etc.
 29

The Gap Theory Corrects the YECSM’s Private

Interpretation of “Christ Taught a Young Creation”
Many Young-Earthers, in their books and seminars, have used the
discourse between Jesus and the Pharisees in Mark 10:2-9 to indicate that
Jesus knew and taught that the Earth was young. Listen to the following:

Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation,

God made them male and female.” From this passage, we
see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young,
for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not
billions of years after the universe and earth came into
existence.14

Most Young-Earthers have used the following passage to disprove the Gap
Theory. Let’s look at that passage of Scripture.

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man
to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto
them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses
suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And
Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he
wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his
father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be
one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark
10:2-9)

The Young-Earthers teach that Christ taught a young age of the earth by
using these verses to indicate that creation’s beginning was when God
made male and female. If this is so, then we have Jesus teaching a young
earth in this passage. It is a valid argument, but only study will reveal
whether this is proper or private interpretation. Consider the following
points:

• Adam and Eve’s making was not at the beginning of the Six-Day
Narrative but at the tail end of it.

14
The New Answers Book 1, Ken Ham, Master Books, Green Forest, AR., Chapter 20,
pg. 255, 2009.
30

• The context of this verse is found in the subject of marriage and not a
proof for creation.
• Jesus was referring to something that had been written in the Old
Testament when he asked, “w what did Moses command you?” The Old
Testament rendering is not propagated as the Young-Earthers
insinuate. Here it is: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “W When a man hath taken a
wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in
his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him
write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her
out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may
go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and
write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth
her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be
his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her
again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination
before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the
LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”
• Christ said that Moses gave the bill (Deut. 24:1-4) because of the
hardness of their hearts, “B But from the beginning of the creation
(κτίσεως – institution, Gen. 2:24) it was not so.”15 By looking up the
word creation in Strong’s Concordance, we find that the word has
other meanings. Consider the following: formation, ordinance, and
institution. Clearly, the context points to the beginning and creation of
their marriage, not the creation of the universe!
• The fact that the words beginning and creation are the objects of two
prepositional phrases and pinpoint a time around the beginning and
creation of something, should lead one to conclude that both male and
female possessed only marriage at their beginning.
• The word beginning is in the genitive case, which shows possession.
Illustration: My wife was 21 when we were married and I was 27.
We were both alive long before our wedding date; however, our
beginning was on April 10, 2005. Question: What was it that God
gave to Adam and Eve which they both possessed at their beginning?
Answer: He gave them an imparted wisdom of a sacred union.
Again, the context is marriage and divorce, not creation.
• The word creation is in the genitive case also. Since genitive case
shows possession, this must refer to male and female’s creation or the
bringing together of them by God. At that institution, they became one
15
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, James Strong, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody,
MA.
 31

flesh, in holy matrimony. They both had to be there in order for both
to possess this institution. God didn’t create the institution first and
then created Adam and Eve, nor did God create Adam and Eve at the
same time. What is something that both Adam and Eve possessed at
their beginning (not each one’s beginning)? The word creation is
possessive, which must refer to the institution that united Adam and
Eve, and not their existence. If creation was not in the genitive case,
Young-Earthers could possibly favor this in their direction, but since it
is, they shouldn’t, even though they do.
• The words “ffor this cause” carry some weight to the grammarian as
well. The cause is the institution of marriage (what God hath joined
together) and not “because God has created the earth from the beginning
of the creation.”
• Looking at male’s and female’s purpose in marriage, one can see that
there is a higher objective—God’s dominion mandate, “subdue,
replenish, be fruitful, and multiply” (1:28; 9:1). In order to fulfill the
dominion mandate, God needed an institution with a commitment
behind it; therefore, he chose marriage. Christ was saying that God
did not choose fornication, but marriage. We should never break the
commitment rules in order to fulfill God’s Dominion Mandate;
therefore, God gave them an institution called marriage in order to
fulfill this mandate. From the beginning of that institution, God never
intended divorce; or as in other references, “iit was not so” (Matt.
19:8).
• The article in front of beginning is indefinite (absent), which qualifies
and not identifies. This beginning is not the beginning of beginnings
(the beginning of creation), but simply Adam and Eve’s union.
Young-Earthers are putting their weight on the article as if it was
definite when it’s indefinite.
• The article in front of creation is indefinite (absent) as well, which
qualifies the noun. It is not referring to the original creation of the
universe, nor the six days, but Adam and Eve’s institution or union
(the bringing together of them by God). It is impossible from any
translation to discern from the definite article and the indefinite article.
Study allows one to lean on each specific article, which is necessary
for proper interpretation. Here, we see the carelessness on the
YECSM’s part to not highlight the articles.
• There is some speculation that Eve was not made on day six; therefore,
we cannot be dogmatic that there was even a marriage-union in the
Six-Day Narrative. Nobody knows how long Adam was alone.
32

Consider the following: A. God had to bring all the animals to Adam
to see what he would name them (2:20). B. Adam could not find a
help meet (2:21). Whether he was killing two birds with one stone, or
whether he named all the animals and then sought out a wife, is all
uncertain; however, the most important factor to observe is once again,
the time factor. C. Adam’s surgery had to take time. God had to put
him to sleep and take out a rib, etc. D. Adam had to recover. E. God
had to make Eve out of Adam’s rib. F. God had to prepare and bring
Eve to Adam (2:22). Note: The reference to female’s creation in
Genesis 1:27 is referring to all females being created in the image
of God, and not a literal soundboard for a female being created on
day six. This is easily understood in the Image Mandate. In addition,
Genesis chapter two seems to indicate several days between Adam’s
creation in Genesis 2:7 and Eve being brought to Adam in 2:22. G. In
verse eight, God planted a garden (which takes time). H. In verse
nine, God made trees to grow and produce fruit (which takes time). I.
In verse ten, we see that the great river is there to water the garden.
Whether the river was created for the garden or the garden was built
around the river is speculative, but according to the Young-Earth
position, it would have to have been created. J. Man was taken to the
garden in verse fifteen to dress and keep it (which takes time). K. In
verse nineteen, we find that God brought every beast and fowl to
Adam to see what he would name them (which takes time). L. Adam
sought a helpmeet, but couldn’t find one. M. The bride, being made,
prepared, and brought to Adam, took time. In light of all the
aforementioned, if one still believes Eve’s creation was on day six,
give them the benefit of the doubt and move on to the next point.
• The Greek word κτισεως is only translated as “creation” six times out
of the nineteen times that it is used, and none of those six refer to the
Six-Day Narrative. Κτισεως has several other translations and
meanings throughout the Word of God; in Hebrews 4:13, the same
Greek word is translated creature, in Hebrews 9:11, it is translated
building, and in I Peter 2:13, it is translated as an ordinance. For the
most part, the Bible refers it to the creation; however, it never refers
to the time frame of the Six-Day Narrative. This verse could be
translated “from the beginning of their institution, formation, or
ordinance,” without hurting the context of the narrative. The
statements “from the beginning” and “from the creation” were
common phrases of antiquity.
 33

• The word order in the Greek is different than that of the English
rendering. In Greek, the purpose behind word order is for emphasis.
Check out the following word order in the Greek: Mark 10:6, “ἀπὸ
(from) δὲ (but) ἀρχῆς (beginning) κτίσεως (creation) ἄρσεν (male) καὶ
(and) θῆλυ (female) ἐποίησεν (made) αὐτούς (them) ὁ (the) θεός
(God).” With perfect propriety, this verse can be interpreted as follows:
“But (postpositive) from the beginning of their (genitive) ordinance,
God made them male and female.” The word order emphasizes what
the King James does, God is talking about the institution of marriage,
not the Six-Day Narrative of Genesis one.16
• When viewing the same story with Mark’s contemporary (Matthew
19:4-8), we see that the Young-Earth view is also not contextual,
referring to marriage as well. “And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at (ἀπὸ) the beginning
made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man
leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain
shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because
of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.”
• The article in Matthew 19:4-6 is indefinite (absent) as well.
• The word beginning is in the genitive case (showing possession) as
well.
• “IIt” in verse 8 refers to divorce and marriage, not creation. Once
again, we see powerful evidence in this one little word, which
interprets opposite of Young-Earth views.
• Notice “ccreation” from Matthew is left out. According to grammar
and cross-reference, “ccreation” in Mark would have to mean and refer
to the same thing that “bbeginning” and “iit” does in Matthew, which is
marriage.
• They are acting like Christ is not speaking with idiom.
• Finally, it makes no sense to interpret “creation,” in these passages as
the creation of the universe, since that rendering would make the
very statement of Jesus false because man was not created at the
beginning of the Six-Day Narrative, but at the end, and more than

16
The word order lifts out the following truth: It was at the time of marriage that the sexual
behaviors in Adam and Eve were to become active. Sexual relations should only exist under the
divine ordinance of marriage, and not the chaos of sin.
34

likely, just Adam. God created marriage, an intangible oath, not a

tangible product; thus marriage is God’s intellectual property.

The YECSM follows this reasoning in their book titled The New Answers
Book 1,

Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation,

God made them male and female.” From this passage, we
see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young,
for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not
billions of years after the universe and earth came into
existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19
indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the
beginning of the creation. The parallel phrases of “from
the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel”
in Luke 11:50-51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very
close to the beginning of the creation, not billions of years
after the beginning.17

There are four verses in the New Testament which carry the phrase “from
the beginning of the creation.” All of them carry the same grammatical
position that we recently covered. So let’s look at the two verses Mr. Ham
left out.

2nd Peter 3:4-6 And saying, Where is the promise of his

coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, 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: (Gen. 1:2) Whereby the world that then
was, being overflowed with water, perished.”

The Young-Earthers represent 2nd Peter 3:4-6 as verses for Noah’s Flood
instead of Genesis 1:2’s Flood. From their previous view, one can see it
was left out because it would force one to assume that Noah’s Flood
would also be considered at “the beginning of the creation” even though it
was no less than 1,500-years after the Six-Day Narrative.

17
The New Answers Book 1, Ken Ham, Master Books, Green Forest, AR., Chapter 20,
pg. 255, 2009.
 35

The other refereence left out was Revelaation 3:14. Here

H Jesus said
s that he
was “the beginnning of the creation”
c of God. “A And unto the angel of the
church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful
and true witness, the beginning of the crreeation of God.”

If Chhrist is “thee beginning of the creattion of God,,” then theree’s no way

one can pigeonhhole marriaage in the beginning
b off a Six-Dayy Narrative
creattion model. This would imply that Christ
C was a created beinng which is
not ttrue. The Jeehovah’s witnesses and Mormons
M arggue the sam
me phrase in
order to make Christ
C less th
han God and undermine his Deity. By B making
him have a beginnning, he can nnot be eternnal.

Concclusion of Mark
M 10:2-9:: With the abbsence of thhe articles, thhe genitive
case of the wordds, and the context
c in geeneral, we caan conclude that Christ
was simply lettiing the Pharrisees know that from thhe beginningg of Adam
and E Eve’s instituution of marrriage, God never
n intendeed divorce, but
b because
of thhe hardness ofo men’s hearts, Moses gave a bill of o divorcem ment. Since
the Gap Theory continuo ously lendss itself to parsing, declension,
d
conjuugation, preecision, and the scientiffic method it is only evvident that
truthh-seeking Chhristians sho ould give it attention. This
T work will
w offer a
few hundred paages of answ wers, evidennce, Scriptuure, and debbate which
suppport the Gap Theory.