The Gap Theory  
Bad Doctrine with No Basis in Scripture or Science  
By Marc Bates


  1. Summary

The gap theory postulates a creation that is destroyed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  During this time Satan fell, geologic time elapsed and fossils were laid down.  This view is not supported by either the Hebrew words or grammar of the various passages used to support this idea.

    • ‘bara’ and ‘asah’ are used interchangeably to denote creation ex-nihlo.

    • ‘tohu’ and ‘bohu’ do not imply destruction for judgment

    • replenish does not mean to re-fill but to fill the first time

In short, the gap theory is bad doctrine built around mistranslations to compromise the truth of the Bible to fit into secular beliefs of the age of the earth.

  1. Background and History

Over the years there have been many attempts by people to harmonize the creations account of the Bible with secular science.  Some of these attempts are pure heresy, (theistic evolution and progressive evolution) while others are simply misguided.  Science has never disproven the Biblical account of creation and to attempt to harmonize the Bible with secular science is to compromise the word of God.

The ‘Gap Theory’ is one such attempt.  The man most responsible for the gap theory was Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847).[1]  While the idea can be traced back to some obscure writings of Dutchman Episcopius (1583-1643), it was first recorded in a lecture by Chalmers in 1814.[2]

If you note the date, Darwinism was starting to come into full force in Western Europe and men like Huxley were attacking the Biblical record and Christianity directly based on the perceived evidence of science that the earth was far older then the Bible allowed.  The gap theory was used as a way to account for the supposed span of time not accounted for in the Biblical record and was popularized by such eminent men as the Rev. William Buckland, a trained geologist, and 19th century geologist Hugh Miller.[3]

From these men, such notable 19th century works of theology helped to promote the gap theory:

    • Scofield Study Bible: Regulate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.[4]

    • 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.[5]

So we can clearly see that these men of God were compromising their positions on the Bible to harmonize with secular science.  But before we go too far, let us review just what the gap theory is:

The gap theory describes an initial creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1).  During this period the earth and universe were formed. Over the eons either soulless humans or angels led by Satan populated the earth in addition you cold have creatures like dinosaurs as well.  Before Genesis 1:2, Satan rebels against God, who causes an initial flood (Lucifer’s flood) to destroy this pre-Adamic world.  Thus the days of creation starting with Genesis 1:2 were days of recreation, not the original creation.

The gap theory is based on some very bad translations of the Hebrew text and misreading of two prophetic texts (Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 34:11).  We will cover each of these areas in detail.

  1. Genesis 1:1-2

The KJV translation of Genesis 1:1-2 is:

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And 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.

We will also look at two additional views of these two verses, the Masoretic (Hebrew) and Septuagint (LXX, Greek)

.År,a;h; taewÒ µyIm'V;h' tae µyhil¿aÔ ar;B; tyviareB] 1  
µyhil¿aÔ j'WrwÒ µ/ht] ynEP]Al[' Jv,jowÒ Whbow: Whto ht;yÒh; År,a;h;wÒ 2  

.µyIM;h' ynEP]Al[' tp,j,r'm]

  jEn ajrch`/ ejpoivhsen oJ qeo;" to;n oujrano;n kai; th;n gh`n.  2 hJ de; gh` h\n ajovrato" kai; ajkataskeuvasto", kai; skovto" ejpavnw th`" ajbuvssou, kai; pneu`ma qeou` ejpefevreto ejpavnw tou` u{dato".


I provide these for those who wish to double-check my translations with the original language texts.  (A quick note, I use the LXX in many of my OT studies because it predates the Qumran (Deadsea scrolls) by some 300 years and the Masoretic text, which is the basis for most English translations by another 3-500 years.  In addition, the LXX was the version of scriptures quoted by Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament).

A literal translation of the Hebrew test can read:

1 In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth— 2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters.[6]

A literal translation of the LXX text can read:

1In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. 2But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep and the Spirit of God moved over the water.[7]

The reason we are looking at these texts is that the gap theory is largely based on the mistranslation of one Hebrew word in these verses.  It is the Hebrew word ‘hayah’ that is translated as ‘was’ in the KJV and gap theorists claim should be translated as ‘became.’

 “Strong’s Number 1961 hayah { haw-yaw} a primitive root [compare 1933]; TWOT - 491; v AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee[8] 

‘Hayah is normally and simply translated ‘was’.  In all standard translations of the Old Testament, this is the way this verse is translated.  In the few instances when it is translated as became, declarative statements of how something was before precede these.  There is a lack of such a declarative statement in Genesis 1:1-2, thus the normal, usual reading of ‘was’ is called for.

It is also important to realize that every verse of the first chapter of Genesis begins with the Hebrew conjunctive ‘and’ (Hebrew waw).  This conjunctive implies a series of actions.  This happened and this happened and …  Thus each action would normally be taken to occur immediately after its precedent.

While ‘became’ is one of the possible translation of ‘hayah’, recognized grammarians, lexicographers, and linguists have almost universally rejected the translation ‘became’ and ‘had become.’[9]  It is simply grammar in the rest of the Old Testament, when a ‘Waw’ + a noun + ‘haya’ (qal perfect, 3rd person), ‘haya’ is translated as was. “Waltke points out that this view conflicts with a proper understanding of the syntactical function of the waw conjunction in the phrase Jr#a*h*w=, “and the earth” (Gen 1:2). The construction of waw plus a noun does not convey sequence but rather introduces a disjunctive clause. The clause thus must be circumstantial to verse 1  or 3 . It cannot be viewed as an independent clause (“And the earth became”) as held by the supporters of the gap theory.[10]

Thus, the normal grammatical reading of the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1-2 would lead us to the correct ‘the earth was without form and void’ not ‘became’.   This argument becomes even clearer when one reads the LXX.  Hebrew is an expressive language used for emotion, Greek is more analytical and precise in nature.  Since Hebrew scholars, from older Hebrew texts than the Masorites had when they compiled the current Old Testament Hebrew canon, translated the LXX, it can provide some clear insight into the meaning behind troublesome verses.

The Hebrew scholars who wrote the LXX translated this section as “was unsightly and unfurnished.”  Clearly we see confirmation of the normal Hebrew reading of ‘was’ and ‘unformed’ as opposed to ‘became’ and ‘reformed.’

  1. Bara and Asah

The gap theory also rests on the mistranslation of the Hebrew words ‘bara’ and ‘asah.’  Teachers of the gap theory would claim that ‘bara’ means to create out of nothing, while ‘asah’ means to ‘make.’  This implies that ‘bara’ can only be used when we are discussing creation while ‘asah’ can only be used when we are dealing with pre-existent matter.

Thus, the gappists claim that the use of ‘bara’ in Genesis 1:1 shows initial creation, while the use of ‘asah’ in Exodus 20:11 shows remaking of the heavens and earth.

Genesis 1: 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Exodus 20:11For 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 seems to be correct:

In Genesis 1:1, ‘bara’ is used of the creation of the heavens and earth.
In Genesis 1:21, ‘bara’ is used of the creation of the first conscious animal (nephesh) life.
In Genesis 1:27, ‘bara’ is used of the creation of the first man.

Each of these creations was something completely new, which did not exist before. 

In Genesis 1:26, God says” Let us make (asah) man in our image,” but the very next verse says, “so God created (bara) man in His own image.”  The same event is described using both ‘bara’ and ‘asah’.  In Hebrew writing, this is known as parallelism and is used throughout the scriptures (particularly in Genesis).  To fully appreciate this, one needs to study Hebrew poetic writing style, which accounts for a majority of the Old Testament.

In addition, in Genesis 2:4, the text says: “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.”  Once again we see an example of Hebrew parallelism and both ‘bara’ and ‘asah’ used to describe the same event.

On occasion ‘asah’ is also used to clearly describe creation from nothing (ex nihlo) despite claims to the contrary.  An example is found in Nehemiah 9:6:

“You alone are the Lord.  You made (asah) the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them.  You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.”

The context of this passage is clearly describing God’s creation of the universe, not just a remaking of a destroyed earth.  Clearly, the two terms ‘bara’ and ‘asah’ are used interchangeably and often are in passages written in Hebrew poetic form (Gen 1:26-27, 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20, 43:7).

  1. Tohu and Bohu

The Hebrew words ‘tohu’ and ‘bohu’, which are translated as ‘without form’ and ‘void’ in Genesis 1:2 have been claimed by gappists to indicate a judgmental destruction rather than the process of building.  The claim is that the word ‘tohu’ should be translated as ‘becoming without form’ as in being destroyed for later rebuilding.

The word ‘tohu’ is used several times in the scripture in which it is “used in a morally neutral state, describing something unfinished and confused, but not necessarily evil’.[11]  Hebrew scholars and the Church have for centuries taken the view that Genesis 1:2 represent an original undeveloped state, not a scene of judgment.

The most obvious reading of the text is that there was an unformed mass (tohu) covered by water no inhabitants yet, being unfilled (bohu).

The gappist would claim that this is not correct because of the use of ‘tohu’ and ‘bohu’ in Jeremiah 4:23 (covered in detail later).  In this verse, Jeremiah uses these terms to describe the laying waste of Jerusalem.  Thus the words must mean ‘laid waste in judgment’.  But there is nothing in Hebrew grammar that requires this.  Jeremiah is using a literary allusion to Genesis 1:2 in describing the severity of the judgment on Jerusalem by the Babylonians.  They (gappists) are trying to force an interpretation of words found far ealier in the text based on their use in an allusion much later.  This is not just circular reasoning - it is faulty.

Let me give you an example.  In a famous speech given by Winston Churchill in 1941, he describes the heroics of the pilots that won the battle of Britain as ‘their finest hour’.  When I talk about the heroics of my favorite football team (in 2000) as ‘their finest hour’, everyone knows the allusion I am referring to.  But the gappist would have us believe that Winston Churchill was referring to my football team when he used the term ‘their finest hour’.

  1. Replenish

The gappist will also point to Genesis 1:28 as a proof of the destruction they read into the supposed gap.  Gen 1:28a And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”  The gappist points to the word replenish as proof that God had to re-fill the earth after the pre-Adamic race or Satan’s angels were destroyed in the so-called ‘flood of Lucifer’.  Is this correct?

First, lets start with the word replenish itself.  It occurs here and in Genesis 9:1 (both times in the imperative form), and five times in three major prophets in the passive and causative forms.  Why did the KJV translators choose this word?

If you examine a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, you will notice that replenish was used to mean ‘fill’ from the 13th through the 17th centuries.  In no case during these five centuries does it ever take on the meaning to ‘re-fill’ as it is used today.

The Latin root for the word replenish is repleo, the same root for the word replete.  We can say ‘I am replete’, a more polite way of saying ‘I am full up’, when dining.  This word does not mean ‘full up again’.  By the same token, replenish did not mean to re-fill, but meant to fill the first time.  There are several examples in Latin, French and 13th through 17th century English writings to demonstrate this.  This is one example of way the Bible student needs to be true lover of words and must understand their true meaning when they were written.

But, instead of arguing over the 17th century use of the word replenish, lets look at the Hebrew itself with a citation form Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon:

4390 maleÕ { maw-lay’}  or malaÕ (Esth. 7:5) { maw-law’} [12]

a primitive root; TWOT - 1195; v

AV - fill 107, full 48, fulfil 28, consecrate 15, accomplish 7, replenish 7, wholly 6, set 6, expired 3, fully 2, gather 2, overflow 2, satisfy 2, misc 14; 249

GK - 4848 { alem;} & 4862 { hl;m;}*

1)   to fill, be full

1a)   (Qal)

1a1)  to be full

1a1a)   fullness, abundance (participle)

1a1b)   to be full, be accomplished, be ended

1a2)  to consecrate, fill the hand

1b)  (Niphal)

1b1)  to be filled, be armed, be satisfied

1b2)  to be accomplished, be ended

1c)   (Piel)

1c1)  to fill

1c2)  to satisfy

1c3)  to fulfil, accomplish, complete

1c4)  to confirm

1d)  (Pual) to be filled

1e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

You will notice that there is no indication of re-filling in the use of this Hebrew word. 

  1. Jeremiah 4:23

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

In Jeremiah 4:23 we have a reading using the words ‘tohu’ and ‘bohu’ that clearly show a destruction by judgment that lays the entirety (being Jerusalem) waste.  But this is a clear example of taking a verse out of context and applying it to doctrine to prove a point erroneously. I will not reprint the entire chapter here (which is required for the context if this verse).  In summary, Jeremiah is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and comparing the severity of it with the Genesis account. In other words, the destruction will be so complete; it will be as if nothing was ever created there.

  1. Bad Doctrine

The gap theory has many variations, but in essence they share the same basic beliefs in a creation that is destroyed and then rebuilt.  This is the core of the issue.  The very concept that there was a pre-Adamic downfall is bad doctrine.

First, Satan’s downfall occurs after the creation.  In Genesis 1:31 God proclaims the whole creation ‘very good’.  The Hebrew translated as ‘very good’ is ‘meod tov’, which indicates perfection, a complete absence of evil of any kind.  Hebrew commentators and Christian (Calvin, Keil and Delitzshce for example) have pointed out that this would not be an accurate statement if Satan had already rebelled and there was the destruction of a pre-Adamic race and an entire world.

Secondly, a general basis held by most gappists is the concept that the fossils found in the supposed geologic column were laid down in ‘Lucifers Flood’, that the fossils are the remains of the creatures that existed before the second creation.  The problem with this view is it discounts the Noahdic flood.  For the flood of Noah not to wipe away the evidence of Lucifer’s flood, it (Noah’s) would have to be a localized event!  While all gappists do not hold this view, they are hard pressed to explain geologic ages and fossils without implying that these creatures supposedly lived during their supposed gap.

A third problem with the gap theory is its allowance of death before the fall of Adam.  Romans 5:12 states “by one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death by sin…”  Adam was created on day six, but the classic gap theory states that during the gap creatures died.  Paul categorically denied this possibility!  And the death spoken of by Paul is not limited to just humans.  Romans 8:20 says that the whole creation was made ‘subject to vanity’.  Death could not have been in the world, even for animals, before the fall.

But what if Paul was only talking about spiritual death?  This cannot be so either.  Adam began to die physically after the fall as well.  The Hebrew is specific that in ‘dying, you will die’.  Jesus also had to suffer both physical and spiritual death (Matthew 27:46) for us on the cross (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

While belief in the gap theory is not heresy in itself, believers are on a slippery slope.  The gap theory does not correlate with Biblical truth in its attempt to harmonize the creation with secular science.  Secular science discounts the gap theory because it doesn’t match accepted humanist interpretation of the evidence.  The gappist cannot correlate the evidence for a young earth with the gap theory. 

The gap theory is a compromise of absolute truth, and as such has been repudiated by creation science, biblical scholarship and God’s word.  Ultimately the gappist will either have to fight his way back up the hill they have built with their compromise of God’s word to the truth or they will fall into the depths of secular beliefs (evolution, geologic time, an absent or non-existent God).

  1. Various Quotes

The restitution theory, or gap theory, has been held by many and is the view taken by the editors of The New Scofield Reference Bible. This view states Genesis 1:1 refers to the original creation of the universe, and sometime after this original creation Satan rebelled against God and was cast from heaven to the earth. As a result of Satan’s making his habitation on the earth, the earth was judged. God’s original creation was then placed under judgment, and the result of this judgment is the state described in Genesis 1:2: The earth was “formless and void” (Whb)w* WhT)). Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23, which include the only other occurrences of the phrase Whb)w* WhT), are cited as passages that substantiate the understanding of “formless and void” in Genesis 1:2 in a negative sense, because these words occur in both passages in the context of judgment oracles.

Waltke points out that this view conflicts with a proper understanding of the syntactical function of the waw conjunction in the phrase Jr#a*h*w=, “and the earth” (Gen 1:2). The construction of waw plus a noun does not convey sequence but rather introduces a disjunctive clause. The clause thus must be circumstantial to verse 1  or 3 . It cannot be viewed as an independent clause (“And the earth became”) as held by the supporters of the gap theory.

Furthermore Waltke rejects the proposal that the occurrence of “formless and void” in Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 34:11 proves that Genesis 1:2 is the result of God’s judgment. Scripture nowhere states that God judged the world when Satan fell.

In view of these objections, the gap theory should no longer be considered a viable option in explaining the meaning of Genesis 1:1–3. The view is grammatically suspect, and Scripture is silent on the idea that the earth was judged when Satan fell. Waltke’s critique of the gap theory is devastating.[13]



This basic Biblical framework, as recorded in Scripture, is built around the following key facts of history: (1) a real and special creation of all things, ex nihilo, in six days, following which God stopped creating; (2) the introduction of rebellion, disharmony, decay and death into the world through man’s Fall and God’s Curse on the whole creation; (3) destruction and renovation of the antediluvian earth and its inhabitants at the time of the great Deluge; (4) the work of redemption, whereby God Himself became flesh to reconcile the world unto Himself, by His substitutionary death and justifying resurrection; (5) the consummation of God’s purposes for the world when Christ returns, involving wrath and judgment for all who have rejected Him, and the creation of a new earth and heavens as the eternal dwelling place of the redeemed.

This basic framework of earth history is emphatically rejected, in every part, by both ancient and modern intellectualism. This rejection is, and must be, based squarely on the assumption of uniformity. The study of present processes could not possibly lead to a knowledge of the above facts of Biblical history, for the simple reason that none of them could possibly be accomplished through present processes.

The study of such present processes is really the only legitimate domain of science. The only processes which can be actually studied and scientifically evaluated are those which are in operation now or which have been in operation within the historic past, as pointed out above. But philosophers have projected these processes into the past and future, on the basis of the premise of uniformity, and have called this projection evolutionary science. It is clearly only philosophy, or even a religion of sorts, rather than a true science, but the highly vocal advocates of this kind of extrapolation have succeeded in persuading many people that “science” indeed has disproved the Biblical framework of earth history.

This, of course, has in essence always been the position of the unbelieving world and so is only to be expected. But the tragedy is that many Christians, even conservative, evangelical Christians, are so intimidated by this pressure that they are willing to compromise the Biblical framework in order to relieve the tension with uniformitarian philosophers. This happened in wholesale fashion in Darwin’s generation, and is being repeated in ours. And now, as then, and as has always been true, compromise is but the prelude to apostasy.

Because one compromise merely leads to another, and then to another, until there is finally nothing left to compromise, the Christian must finally go fully over to the position demanded all along by the uniformitarian.

For example, the materialist will insist that geological science has proved the earth to be millions or billions of years in age and therefore that the Biblical record of a creation of all things only a few thousand years ago is in error. The Christian apologist, not wishing to incur the ridicule of the geologists, decides to accept the geological ages as presented, but to insert them in a possible “gap” between the first two verses of Genesis . The original creation was, he suggests, destroyed by some kind of pre-Adamic cataclysm, and the creation narrative of Genesis really tells about a “re-creation” of the earth, with its animal and human inhabitants.

But this compromise does not satisfy the geologists. The geological ages, with their purported record of a billion years of gradual and progressive development of all kinds of animals on the earth, including man, simply cannot be so easily disposed of. There is no indication geologically of such a worldwide pre-Adamic cataclysm, for one thing, and furthermore the fossil record preserved in the rocks representing the geological ages is essentially composed of the same kinds of animals as the Genesis narrative describes. The fossil record of man himself is also a part of these supposed geological ages, so that this theory soon leads to some kind of “pre-Adamic man,” who lived and died before Adam, even though the Scriptures make it plain (e.g., Rom 5:12; 8:19–23 ) that death first came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin. So it must finally be conceded that the “gap” theory will not really work, geologically speaking, not to mention the many serious Scriptural difficulties it entails.[14]



“There does not seem to be one shred of evidence in favor of the Gap Theory left remaining. Its fanciful cosmogony, Satanology, and allowance for billions of years, all, indeed, appeal to the imagination; but the facts of grammar have consigned the Gap Theory to the graveyard of exegetical misconceptions. We must forever rid ourselves of harmonizations with science which are based on its intimidating power. We must embrace a presuppositional method of apologetics which will deliver us from such an ever-present and powerful danger.”[15]



Gap theory. The gap theory places a lengthy period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, basically as an accommodation to science. In that way gap theorists can hold to the antiquity of the earth yet understand the words of Genesis 1 and 2 literally, adhering to twenty-four hour days of creation. The gap theory teaches that there was an original creation (some place the gap prior to v. 1; others place it between 1:1 and 1:2) and as a result of Lucifer’s rebellion and fall, the earth became chaos. The phrase “formless and void” (Gen. 1:2) describes the chaotic earth that God judged. Millions of years took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, in agreement with scientific evaluation concerning the age of the earth.

The problems of the gap theory have been well documented. The grammar of Genesis 1:1–2 does not allow for a gap. Verse one is an independent clause. Verse two is composed of three circumstantial clauses, explaining the condition of the earth when God began to create, and it is connected to verse 3. There is no break between verses 1 and 2. The gap theory also depends on “formless and void” meaning evil or the result of a judgment; however, its usages in Job 26:7 and Isaiah 45:18 do not suggest this. Gap theorists also draw a distinction between the Hebrew verb bara (Gen. 1:1), suggesting it means creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), whereas asa (Gen. 1:7, 16, 25, etc.) means a refashioning. A careful study of these two verbs reveals they are used interchangeably; asa does not mean to refashion.

The gap theory is not built on exegesis but is rather an attempt to reconcile the Bible with the views of science.[16]



Gap theory.

The view that original creation is described in Gen. 1:1, but between vv. 1 and 2 there was a “gap” of an indeterminate length of time; during that period Satan fell, resulting in a condemned earth (which was his domain); that judged state is reflected in v. 2 by the description of the earth as “waste and void”; appeal is made to Isa. 45:18 in the AV to support the view; it attempts to allow for long geologic periods in the early verses of Genesis; however, the NIV of Isa. 45:18 will not allow that verse to be used to support the view; further the Hebrew grammar of 1:1–2 stands against it; the role of Satan in regard to the earth required by the view does not fit with the rest of Scripture; the view’s resulting interpretation of v. 3 as a recreation forces us to view v. 1 as the only account of original creation; Gen. 1:2; Isa. 45:18.[17]



With the growing feeling in evangelical circles that the inexorable demands of science must be accommodated, every attempt has been made to find a literal interpretation of the creation which would be rated “scientific” by the intellectual circles. But every attempt has failed. Neither the Gap Theory nor the Day Age Theory could afford the necessary concessions required to satisfy science. Every concession has been followed by a demand for two more. Having chosen the course of accommodation to science, they have found science to be a hard taskmaster. Having ventured into a courtship with the scientism of today, they found that it brought them into the outer edges of a whirlpool that has drawn them steadily toward the vortex of complete capitulation.

Here is one case in point. Some, such as William F. Albright, felt that by pushing the date for the creation of men back 150,000 to 200,000 years they would satisfy the scholar’s demands. And they professed that this could be done by enlarging the “gaps” in the genealogies of Genesis. Now, they find that science has pushed back the date of man’s existence more than a million years! Zwemer has quoted this significant statement by Leaky, the noted paleontologist, from his book, Adams Ancestors:

Perhaps some readers of this book, when they realize that prehistory has now traced back man of our own type to the beginning of Pleistocene, and has shown that he was contemporary with various other more primitive types of man and not evolved from them, will begin to think that there is evidence which is contrary to the theory of evolution. It has been suggested to me that…this may be taken to indicate that this type of man has his origin in a special creative act, and is not the result of any normal evolutionary process. This is certainly not the interpretation which I would put upon the available evidence. I should say rather that we have learned that evolution has been very much slower than we have sometimes been led to believe… There can be no doubt now that man has been in existence upon the earth much longer than the million years assigned to the Pleistocene period.

Those Biblical scholars who went out on a limb to say that 100,000 years could be accommodated in a literal interpretation of Genesis now find the limb neatly sawed off behind them.[18]

[1] WW. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Collins, IL: Burgeners Enterprises, 1976), p.40

[2] I.T. Taylor,  In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto, Canada: TFE Publishing, 1984), p. 363

[3] H. Miller, The Testimony of the Rocks (New York: Boston, Gould and Lincoln, 1867), p. 143

[4] C.I. Scofield, editor,  The Scofield Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945. (Originally published as The Scofield Reference Bible, this edition is unaltered from the original of 1909)

[5] F.H. Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1961), p. 51

[6]Young, Robert, Young’s Literal Translation, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[7] Brenton, Lancelot, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (United States, Hendrickson Publishers) 1999, p. 1

[8]Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[9] Ham, Ken, The Alleged Biblical Evidence for a Gap (Answers in Genesis) 2999, [Online] Available:

[10]Multiple, Bibliotheca Sacra, (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary (Electronic edition by Galaxie Software)) 1999, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[11] Ham, Ken, The Alleged Biblical Evidence for a Gap (Answers in Genesis) 2999, [Online] Available:

[12]Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[13]Multiple, Bibliotheca Sacra, (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary (Electronic edition by Galaxie Software)) 1999, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[14]Multiple, Grace Theological Journal, (Winona, IN: Grace Seminary (Electronic edition by Galaxie Software)) 1999, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[15]Multiple, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, (Lynchburg, VA: JETS (Electronic edition by Galaxie Software)) 1998, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[16]Enns, Paul, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press) 1996, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[17]Paul S. Karleen, The Handbook to Bible Study, (New York: Oxford University Press) 1987, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

[18]Multiple, Grace Theological Journal, (Winona, IN: Grace Seminary (Electronic edition by Galaxie Software)) 1999, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.