The Gap Theory - Is it Biblical?

[@cmcapps1963]

I'm so thankful we have these videos so that Dr. Heiser can continue to teach us. Prayers for his family and gratitude that he is the Lord's presence where we will all be one day.

[@Saddlemomma]

HAHAHA! I was accused of being a gap theorist by another Christian I had just met, because I was asked if I believed in a "young Earth". I replied that we really can't know the exact age of the Earth; the Bible doesn't address it; it isn't a salvation issue; and therefore I don't worry or speculate about it. He immediately became defensive and said, "You believe in the Gap Theory!!" Okay, whatever you want to believe, Bud. I don't really care. Honestly, having Dr. Mike in my life has made me a much freer Christian rather than trying to navigate all those man-made doctrines, inconsistencies, and worrying about which theories I should be following as a "real" Christian. Thanks to Dr. Mike, I don't worry about all that any more. I just follow Jesus and His example according to the Bible in its proper ancient context. May you rest in peace, brother, and may God bless your family.

[@dano8012]

Oh

[@ESMarker]

So true. ❤Mike is missed by us all ❤❤❤

[@voiceInDetroit]

Heiser's main argument is that because Gen 1:2 starts with a vav-disjunctive, then Gen 1:2 did not happen after Gen 1:1. It is true that the vav-disjunctive does not indicate chronological sequence, but it does not demand that the events be not in sequence. The vav-disjunctive is more flexible than that. The vav-disjunctive indicates a break in the narrative. In the usual case, where there are a string of vav-consecutives followed by a vav-disjunctive, the vav-disjunctive usually indicates a past perfect. Such is the case with Gen 2:5, which back tracks in time to tell us the details of God's creation of man. Vav-disjunctives usually start chapter breaks. i.e. Gen 3:1 and Gen 4:1. (Gen 2:5 should be the chapter break for ch 2.) Gen 3:1 has the same structure as Gen 1:2. Now the serpent had become more crafty than any animal of the field … . The vav disjunctive indicates a break with Gen 2, but not necessarily that it did not happen after Gen 2. It indicates that this is a break from God's plan, and it gives background for the narrative to follow. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:2 Now the earth had become chaos and useless, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. The vav-disjunctive in 1:2 does a number of things: It puts a full stop after 1:1, so 1:1 should be considered a completed action on its own. It indicates there is not a smooth transition from 1:1 to 1:2. It is a break in God's plan, as Gen 3:1. This is also indicated by "the earth" and "darkness" being the subjects instead of God.

[@MaxMBJ]

Im a gapper and i listened with interest because i respect Helser’s intellect. But his argument was weak to me and at times built on logical fallacy. For instance, when he talks of tohu and bohu he mentions the use of it in Is. and Jer. as having a judgmental connotation- to his credit - but fails to quote Isaiah 45:18 Where were told God “… did not create it [the earth] a wasteland… [tohu]. Further, to say the lack of the vu-consecutive (or however you spell it) proves that Gen. 1:1-3 was not a linear sequence is ridiculous. We have no idea how the heavens and the earth came into existence. Also, I don’t think Heiser addressed the absurdity of the “So when did Satan fall?” Was it on Monday? Or Tuesday? One last point: Heiser says the Bible makes no mention of when this happened but Jesus said, “I was there when Satan fell like lightning from the heavens.” Hm. Was that Wednesday? Or Thursday? Heiser has a kind of built in arrogance to his tone. That doesn’t disqualify any argument he is making, but that tone is extremely offputting to me. It hurts his credibility.

[@apollo6753]

Great points. And to your final point about the "arrogance to his tone." I watched a lot of videos from theologian's, or intellectual enthusiasts on this topic speak arrogantly about what ever creation theory they disagreed with. It really struck me and annoyed me and I'm glad you saw that because it is in many videos from Christians.

[@Matt24_]

Excellent points. I agree with everything you stated. I am often labeled an evolutionist, which I am not. God created the earth in 6 literal days then rested on the 7th. God doesn’t create a watery mess, so something had to have made the mess. God judged Satan’s domain which was our solar system. This is why Uranus spins like a bowling ball and Venus spins different from earth and there’s an asteroid belt. I don’t buy Henry Morris’ statement that “God created the earth with the appearance of being old”. That would make God a deceiver. Sorry “Young Earthers”.

[@djbzwaxx421]

​@@Matt24_ How would that make God a deceiver? Was Adam created as a baby? Or an adult male? This isnt my position but I dont see how God creating earth in "adult" form, as the argument goes, would make him a deceiver.

[@Matt24_]

@@djbzwaxx421 Sorry but your comparison of Adam and the Earth for an adult creation does not work for me. That comparison is new to me. Young earth believers often equate the fall of man and sin entering God’s creation as one event. I respectfully disagree. Adhere to the belief that sin entered God’s creation when Lucifer committed the sin of pride and rebelling against his creator. The Bible does not go into detail about Satan’s fall, although there are references, but for God’s purpose of redemption of man, He goes into great detail. I appreciate your comment and value your opinion as well as any believer in Jesus Christ that holds a young earth view. Blessings.

[@robertpillowjr.1672]

I've learned so much from Dr. Heiser. His teachings have been such a blessing for personally. Not to mention incredibly interesting. I could listen to him for hours on end.

[@jonahwashburn9573]

the problem with this idea is that evil, death and sin didn't exist in the world until the Fall. The serpent was sinful, yes, but he was an angel of the supernatural world, and his rebellion didn't curse the physical world. Thus, God would have no reason whatsoever to destroy and then 'recreate' the Earth

[@pilsenoffice3591]

If Verse 2 is not a result of a Judgment then the Earth which is already existing was created as defined in verse 2 as if God created the Earth as described. But why did the stars of light sing and the sons of God shout for joy when it was created as described in Job 38:6,7? What's there to shout about if the Earth is void and formless and darkness covering it? I believe in the Gap of time and you can read Jack Langford's "The Gap It's Not a Theory"

[@a.j.beltran4795]

The adversative clause of v2 makes it really a gap because it opposes the idea of v1 perfect creation.

[@Robert-zk7su]

Hi Michael. I have been a many year follower of your teachings. I remember praying to Yeshua "what did you really do on the cross?" You have opened my eyes through His Spirit and answered many questions. Thank you for being His vessel. I have always held a somewhat "gap" understanding of the period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Please help me reconcile Genesis 1:2 that "the earth was without form and void (Toho wa-boho) and Isaiah 45:18. "For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens. He is the God who formed the Earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place. But formed it to be inhabited. Thank you for your teachings. I'm sorry if you have covered this previously. I was unable to located any reference to the correlation of the passages. Blessings

[@LindaKennedy-t4s]

God created heaven and earth perfect. Satan's fall gen 1:2 caused earth to become a wasteland. Then God restored earth for Adam and Eve. It makes sense to me especially all the verses through the Bible to Jude that mention these.

[@matthewkay1327]

And I for one would love to hear what your theory is please, Michael?

[@DavidRodriguez-hg6kq]

@@ziphos Excuse me? How do you know this? Is he an old earth creationist?

[@kimmasuen4107]

@@DavidRodriguez-hg6kqI recently heard him say he doesn't really have a problem with evolution. He says he's open. Very disappointing.

[@Seraphimofwoodstock]

@@kimmasuen4107 Specifically where and when did he say that? Details please?

[@kimmasuen4107]

@@Seraphimofwoodstock I've heard at least 50 interviews in the last couple of months I couldn't possibly remember which one but he was speaking with a scientist who happens to be a Christian and has a ministry sharing what he believes is the fact that Christianity (the Bible) and science are not necessarily at odds.

[@Seraphimofwoodstock]

@@kimmasuen4107 Do recall if the interview was on this specific channel, or could that have been on another channel? Dr Heiser is open to various things as possibilities that he doesn't necessarily specifically advocate. I'm want to hear the specifics of his perspective. Thank you for what you've passed on. And do you recall any other particulars that might assist me in locating the interview(s) in question?

[@ckmoore]

If the first three verses are not sequential, would we be able to say that heaven and earth was created, formless and void, prior to "let there be light" (sequential) in verse 3, or at the same time? Or is there some other proper understanding of this?

[@djr3000]

I bought four of your books after being so impressed by an audio video I heard about the cultural context of the old testament. Resolved so much so quickly. I'm curious though if we could apply cultural taboos of Bible times to homosexuality and the Bible, since its moral status is something I have been studying for years

[@lynnv8501]

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

[@_sheebie]

Excellent video Michael. Very precise and to the point. Great job and much love.

[@drewdog365]

Dr. Heiser - I have a few questions and would love your thoughts. 1. On what day was the earth created? 2. Can you have a gap of time between vs 2 and 3? 3. Can you have a gap of time theory without taking the rest of it (The earth's state is because of Judgement, death enters during that time, Satan falling during that time)? I ask because I don't understand why all that is rolled into the gap portion. Thank you!

[@ditchner]

Good points! Please see my comments which I just posted.

[@TheMasterfulMishaps]

Please more Genesis stuff!

[@voltrondefenderoftheuniver6222]

Could you follow this up buy talking about dealing with the geologic & Fossil record?

[@chrisbrower9532]

Voltron Defender of the Universe the geo/fossil “records” are based in circular reasoning and so, are not scientific whatsoever. You see, the fossils are dated based on what layer of the geological column they are found in, typically the deeper the layer, the older. On the other hand, the geo layers are based on what fossils we find in them. 😐 I think most can see a problem here already. Fossils do not tell you how old something is, but simply that it was something at sometime and perhaps, a little about the conditions of its death. Fossils rely on certain specific conditions to form. It’s a good question; I also had it before digging in (pun intended), to the science.

[@voltrondefenderoftheuniver6222]

Maybe a better way to word this is.. Mr Heiser, how do you navigate the biblical record vs the Fossil record? If we can read the scripture as this was the state of being prior to the garden, then this still means the earth existed.

[@garycarter2362]

"KENT HOVIND"VIDEOS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING ON CREATION AND FOSIL RECORD! GOD BLESS ❤

[@thetat2dpreacher]

Hi Mike! I love love love your content and own every one of your books! Question: I get that you say that "Hebrew grammar stops the Gap Theory in its tracks", but if that's the case then how can other scholars who are fluent in Hebrew argue for the opposite? Are they ignoring what is there? Like I get the fact that in "Middle Earth" people like to find conspiracies and all that, but I am talking about the scholars and theologians who would disagree? How do you respond to them.

[@fcastellanos57]

Just to comment on your question, having a scholarship or being a theologian does not make you necessarily to be on the side of the truth, those people have the same information we have or anyone can have, outside of that it is speculation on their part. There is nothing about the Gap theory anywhere in the other books such as the book of Job which mentions the creation more than Genesis does.

[@thetat2dpreacher]

I understand that. What I am inquiring about is from an Acedemic perspective, I have heard Hebrew scholars examine the grammar and come to a different conclusion. From an Acedemic perspective how does Mike respond.

[@fcastellanos57]

@@thetat2dpreacher Mike may not respond. The fact is that in Hebrew the word day is Yom . this is found in Wikipedia " Thus "yom", in its context, is sometimes translated as: "time" (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8); "year" (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4); "age" (Gen 18:11, 24:1 and 47:28; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2); "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24 and 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7); "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3); epoch or 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31) - " Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general. So, we can't say the six "days" of creation were actual six days, as a matter of fact we are still in the seventh day which did not come to a close in Genesis. To think that the whole universe was made in six days is sort of absurd, considering all that had to happen from the beginning. There is no evidence of this anyway, the evidence is that it took 13.8 billion years for the whole universe to come to how it is right now. It takes a human being 9 months to be formed, are we to actually conceive that the universe and the earth with everything in it only took 6 days to be completed from nothing to their completion?

[@MVS77MVS]

@@fcastellanos57 Since you mentioned the book of Job, please explain Job 38:4-7, which says that the sons of God shouted for joy, when the cornerstone of the earth was set? How were they able to witness creation from the foundation, as stated in these verses?

[@fcastellanos57]

MVS77MVS From what I remember the phrase sons of God refers to angels which were created long time ago before the physical universe was created. What does the cornerstone of the earth mean? Not sure but it seems to be a metaphor not an actual cornerstone..

[@TheHenok30]

"Without form (TOHU)" can just mean that the earth wasn't formed yet by volcanic eruptions, lava cooling, etc. There is no reason to assume something sinister or a judgment occurred. - The earth being "void or empty (BOHU)" could just mean that there were no humans, animals & plants on its surface yet. - Those two interpretations are what the Aramaic Targums suggest.

[@wallacje]

without form likely refers to water covered, water has no distinct form and no matter what you believe it is obvious in vs 2 that the earth was covered with water. Void does mean without life. That is true and fits both narratives equally

[@wallacje]

Genesis 1:2b "darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

[@rednab2001]

So if Lucifer is in the garden of Eden to temp Eve, it is clear that he was cast from heaven before verse 3. Ezekiel clearly describes his fall. He was cast down to earth before kings. If you have kings you have kingdom’s. It clearly states Lucifer was in a destroyed state and was seen by “the people.” It states Lucifer was punished for several things including trade. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for Lucifer’s story. Until this is explained, the gap theory is still the only explanation.

[@SoutheastTx]

I've seen 2 videos recently here on KZbin talking about this. They give theories based on Bible verses. The Bible does say that Lucifer fell before mankind was created. I remember reading about him being cast out before kings I was confused. That's when I did research and discovered this gap theory thing. Very interesting.

[@redmandjg45]

Lucifer was cast down in the garden after tempting the humans, not before. This is also before kings and kingdoms, as there's only 2 people. Lucifer was jealous and looked to hurt the heart of God by tricking us.

[@rednab2001]

@@redmandjg45 That is not how the scripture reads. The garden of Eden was perfect. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Lucifer was cast down into that Garden. It says he was cast down to Earth. Your explanation also does not account for why Lucifer was cast out. Lucifer was cast out for his own personal sin and iniquity. Your statement makes it sound like Lucifer was already corrupted and warring against God before he was cast out of heaven. That makes no sense. It states that Lucifer was perfectly made...until...iniquity was found in his heart. Go back and read Ezekiel 28:11-19. It is clear that Lucifer's casting out was long before his appearance in the Garden of Eden as the serpent.

[@priest0701]

Dr. M.H., well done video!

[@SomeOne-ke4fz]

What about "the face of god moved over the waters", where did the WATER come from if not from a previous flood because some kind of judgement before Adam and eve, that caused the world to become void and full of water.

[@jasong9472]

Also, I have never heard the translation as "BECAME", it has always been, to me at least, "HAD BECOME". That seems to me very clear and mutes Heisers basic premise. Moreover: Jermemiah 4:23 "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. 25 lI looked, and behold, there was no man," The use of Tohu wa-bohu (תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ⁠) is 100% in reference to something unique, mountains quaking, hills moving to and fro, there was no "MAN", yet this is not even made relevant? Not to mention the HEAVENS HAD NO LIGHT, what....? I do not see the logic whatsoever. Hills do not move to and fro, and the sun does not stop shining after a military conquest, resulting in the enslavement of the entire region. Jeremiah is obviously and logically pointing to a time and an individual, before there was, what is. This is obviously very peculiar... I do not agree with the 2nd premise, and the arbitrary logic of negating and ignoring verse 24 and 25. I could keep going, but heck just read all of Jeremiah 4... uggh What on earth am I missing here? This video is below par..

[@jasong9472]

I gave this a thumbs down, first time i think I have ever done that. Ever

[@flashflood4]

The rest of Jer. 4:25-26 explains it, "I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its cities were pulled down before the Lord, before His fierce anger." The prophets frequently used imagery from the creation and fall to talk about Judah's forthcoming destruction at the hands Babylon - like a garden being destroyed and returning to primordial chaos. Having said that, just because Jer. 4 isn't about the gap theory, that doesn't mean things didn't exist before Gen. 1 - God had to create the water at some point, so other created things may have been around too.

[@jasong9472]

@@flashflood4 ya describing a time before ...obvious

[@runawaytrain9794]

Jason, I think you missed that Micheal mentioned you just can't import' Jeremiah 4:23 ipso facto, by DEFAULT back to Genesis ONLY because the same two words 'tohu'/bohu' in both books, especially with no timeline described in Jeremiah whatsoever even if you see in your mind, even HINTING backwards Genesis, even if those two same words are used. ''Become'', ''Had Become" is how in your mind YOU saw it. Think deeper...''become'' and ''had become" are in ENGLISH, the most deceptive and misleading language on the Planet IMHO, and we all know Genesis was written in Hebrew. I think the Bible read in English is just twisted like a Prezel, Brother. I'm not ruling OUT Jeremiah MAY be referencing Genesis, but no one knows with hardcore certainty, not even Dr. Heiser...I don't walk in lockstep with anyone, besides, it's not a good thing to be dogmatic about anything. So It COULD refer to Genesis, but it also could be a reference to a future judgment as well.

[@redlightdeath]

What you’re missing is a very basic understanding Hebrew grammar, and maybe some logic.

[@a.t.strock2960]

Thank you for bringing up so many interesting and challenging subjects, and addressing them so well! I am not a scholar, but a lifelong believer, and to me, it feels like the gap theory explains many things. For example where God tells Adam and Eve to replenish the Earth, which would only make sense if it had been “plenished “ previously!

[@mountaingirlministry7733]

Good point! This is such an interesting topic! Not sure what I think for sure yet but very interesting!

[@a.t.strock2960]

Reel Women yes, same here! I’m kinda hoping the gap side is correct just because it has so many interesting possibilities, but no matter which side is right, God always ends up being more fascinating than I’d expected!

[@ZionKid95]

Why didn't God save his first creation like He does now?

[@a.t.strock2960]

ZionKid95, it was a completely different situation, and we are so far from it in time that we can only know bits that have been handed down. Spirits can tell us things, but we don’t know if they’re true or not. So we really have to rely on what’s been handed down to us. With what little we know, we have to trust that God, being there and knowing the whole story from the beginning, would have the absolutely right response, and solution to the situation, and the beings involved, and He would have dealt with it exactly as needed. It’s possible that the situation we now find ourselves in is even possibly a partial result of what happened before, as Gods judgement may not be fully complete yet. But we can trust that He knows what He’s doing, and He always has a good reason for allowing things to happen the way they have. He will be vindicated in the end, and He will be proven to be absolutely right in everything He did. And we will worship Him, and be awed at how amazing He is!

[@ChildofGod-q7j]

I just know what scripture tells us. We r not to add or take away from scripture. Some things are just omitted. I’ve resigned myself into knowing there r many things that will remain a mystery!!! Blessings and love to all

[@mikenelson7894]

Excellent commentary 🙌🏼🙌🏼

[@scottmccln]

What is not necessary is for the word 'became' to be the reading of the text. What is necessary or helpful today is to try to understand when the heavenly beings or angels were created and when some of them rebelled or began to do mischief. What is the history, the issues, the ambition, the jealousy, of the subtle serpent character in Genesis 3? This 'fall' of Man happened so quickly! What tensions may have existed prior that led to this? The 'foundations of the earth' passage in Job, when the 'Sons of God shouted for joy', when was that? No 'Sons of God' were reported to be rebelling back then as yet. When were these 'foundations' laid? The story picks up at 'was', but what was before? To me, it looks like the brief mention of the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth is followed by an Man focused account, about the earthly realm Man inhabits. You don't get much info about angels or heavenly beings in a book dedicated to the Beginnings of Mankind and the Earth.

[@MorrisHunter]

Good effort. I don't find the case against the Ruin/Reconstruction theological interpretation to be more convincing than several points which strongly favor it in my view but I appreciate the exegesis. The strong point of the argument in the video is based on an interpretation of Hebrew language usage. 1) This interpretation s not universally agreed to by Hebrew scholars. So at best it may be considered a point against the theory but far from a singular "death blow". 2) The video points out that in 2 other scriptures (2 or 3 witnesses) the phrase translated "without form and void" does support the inference of some sort of judgement or "Ruin" having occurred. The commentary then goes on to say essentially that it this doesn't necessarily mean it infers the same thing in Genesis. Sorry but that is not a refutation of the validity of the point. It does infer judgement. Its up to the reader to determine if it holds consistent here or not but it certainly isn't refuted by saying it might not. 3) Replenish the earth. 4) The Serpent is already evil in the Genesis Narrative. 5) Genesis clearly is not meant to describe every even of all time and eternity. As Job 38:4-7 says explicitly The angels were already there for the initial creation of the planet earth. Genesis is written to go into that at all. Prophets peer into that in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, not Genesis. Likewise the Prophet Jeremiah could consistently be used to describe in prophetic cryptic terms a Pre-Adamic judgement in Jer 4 6) The entire context of Genesis is chronological narrative! your refutation of the gap theory lies entirely on a subjective interpretation of what is meant by the Hebrew construction, Let me offer this point. I in fact can easily take the very astute point made by Dr. Heiser at 7:35 of the video kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJW9ZnapgpWkaKs and INTERPRET it as definitively SUPPORTING the GAP THEORY! In other words, stay with me, according to your finding in the Hebrew GENESIS VERSE ONE AND TWO ARE EXPLICITLY SET ASIDE IN THE NARRATIVE FROM VERSE 3 AND THE REST OF THE CHAPTER! That actually could be seen to SUPPORT a GAP THEORY!  Let's consider the vav consecutive vs the vav disjunctive use here and what the author might intend by it: "This vav disjunctive disallows any gap of time between verse 1 and 2 because verse 2 does not follow in time." So if both verse 1 and 2 are set apart in time from the rest of the narrative could that not in fact be evidence supporting the Gap Theory? VERSE 1: God created the Heavens and the earth VERSE 2: Commentary on verse 1 BUT WITH NO EXPLICIT CHRONOLOGICAL TIME NARRATIVE VERSE 3: NOW we explicitly begin a chronological time driven narrative including explicitly days and the evening the morning defining those days. I could say more but I think the point is there is more evidence for the Gap Theory than against, I think by far. This is especially true when you consider and read the Evidence of God's Creation i.e. the physical world and what is implied by the "science". The bible tells us we should also read the Creation and see God in His creation. The Creation of Angels and all history of forever is simply not in scope of Genesis and details on the fall of Lucifer and the entrance of evil into the garden to begin with are likewise "out of scope". People should consider and understand that Genesis and most of the entire Bible is about the age of Adam & Eve and their progeny (us).

[@No-body369]

In addition to many original ancient versions of this text in the Chaldee version, Arabic version and Septuagient where they ALL say Became; you can find much evidence in the bible. 2nd Peter ch 3 is about the 3 world ages. Other verses related to the 3 earth ages can be found in Jer 1:15 4:22-28, Col 2:8, Gal 4:3, Isiah 45:18, Job 38:1-7, Eze 28:12-17, Eph 1:1-14, Rev 12:1

[@GradyRisley]

The problem is... Genesis wasn't written as historical text! It was written as a Theological explanation. To Hebrews with the purpose of showing/telling/explaining to Hebrews their "YHWH" and who He is/was/always will be.

[@SDsc0rch]

there's no Gap - the first statement is a kind of a title (we see this later on) - the statements following are the narrative

[@tmyflyte]

But the ‘title’ does not agree with the dissertation. Verse 2 ends with an earth that was formless, empty, flooded, dark. At the end of the chapter we see an earth that is formed, blessed & filled with life...

[@SDsc0rch]

@@tmyflyte - uhm... we go from disorder to order - sorry "you don't approve" the words God chose as a title...

[@TheHenok30]

I view Gen. 1:1 as the summary or what God did in a nutshell. The following verses are what & how God made & filled the heavens and the earth.

[@SDsc0rch]

@@TheHenok30 - you're not the only one

[@matturban9103]

@@tmyflyte the only reason it is formless is because it's like a ball clay in a sculptor's hand. It held all the chemicals God wanted to use to creature water,air,rocks and life. God just called them out and then sculpted man(Adam).

[@jackpullen3820]

The gap was before, and outside of time. Also when you go to original KJV and Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, it reads, the earth was made void, " Empty ". Be that as it may, one thing is certain, a day will come when we all will be taught by God.

[@nicholaspowers4782]

What about Isaiah 45:18?

[@DavidRodriguez-hg6kq]

I was watching an episode on SkyWatch TV defending The Gap but the good Dr. Heiser wins hands down!

[@stevenfelipe7771]

It does say that Satan (being the father of lies [ I assume that means he told the first lie] ) killed Adam. Therefore he must have fallen before Adam sinned. So, the Bible does infer that his fall was at least before the fall of man. Sorry to be nit picking, but it's your fault Dr. Heisar, you got me thinking logically. Love your stuff and I feel I've learned a lot from you. I hope you keep going for many years to come. God bless and keep you. Steven Felipe

[@40ddpam]

Really enjoy Dr. Heiser - not a believer in the gap theory and really am not concerned about it all. The one question I would like to ask Dr.Heiser if i ever had the opportunity is this: " Is there any passage that would indicate where the water came from it seems is mentioned in this passage ( Genesis 1:1-2)?" Would not water indicate a creative act? Just curious.

[@randellbrown3365]

can someone tell me why we keep ignoring the vav between the heavens and earth in genesis 1.1 that bible hub identifies as a vav disjunctive

[@NickGuenther21]

When did "the war in heaven" happen? 10:50 I don't understand the fall of satan & birth of messiah chronology :/

[@fcastellanos57]

There is a war in heaven which has not happened yet since Satan and all the demonic forces are still in the heavenly realms, this was will happen before the dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns appears which is the last human government where the woman rides which is controlled by Satan.

[@AlanRussellFuller]

2 Enoch ch. 29 describes an angel being thrown into the abyss on the second day of creation. 3 And one from out the order of angels, having turned away with the order that was under him, conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds above the earth, that he might become equal in rank to my power. (Isaiah 14:13) 4 And I threw him out from the height with his angels, and he was flying in the air continuously above the bottomless.

[@rocketmanshawn]

2 Enoch also has Enoch as the messiah instead of Jesus. Nobody takes 2 Enoch seriously.

[@AlanRussellFuller]

@@rocketmanshawn You should say nobody takes 2 Enoch literally.

[@mbgrafix]

Dr. Heiser, I am by no means trying to posit the gap theory, however one thing that you said did bring a question to my mind. Can we not surmise that Satan was already in his fallen/rebellious state when he appears in Genesis 3? Afterall, he tempts Eve, then in verses 14 &15 God curses him for what he has done. Certainly, this is not the actions of a being who is in harmony with God. No? On another note...though I wish that I did, I do not know Greek and Hebrew, and as such I must rely alone upon the English translations of the Bible. That being said, I am curious to know your opinion on something...you see, in reading the creation account in Genesis 1, it appears to me to be an account told from the perspective of someone who is witnessing the creation from the surface of the Earth. That is to say...that perhaps when God revealed the creation to Moses, He did so by a vision in which He "placed" Moses upon the Earth, then allowed him to witness the 6 days from that perspective. I realize that it is pure speculation on my part, and I am not married to the notion...I only wonder about the possibility because as I read the account, and imagine myself as the one witnessing the creation, I find that much of what people find difficult to understand...at times even claiming that it contradicts itself...makes sense when imagined witnessing it all from the surface. I respect your training and understanding, and as such I am interested in your opinion. Thank you!

[@fcastellanos57]

Mike Bennett In case you do not get any answers from the Dr, Hugh Ross who is an astronomer has your understanding and I do too. However the time is not days but periods of creation, there is not an evening and a morning in day seventh therefore we are still in it. To think that it was a 6 day creation of 24 hours each is to go against what we can observed from the physical universe. The laws of physics have not changed since creation since astronomers can look into the past with their telescopes and find everything to be the same as far as the laws of nature is concerned as they are now.

[@jtflypegasus]

gap theory is biblical fact...you need to use KJV version. modern versions are perverted.

[@MorrisHunter]

BECAME, again in a context of judgment: Genesis 1:2 The earth was (hayeta) without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Genesis 19:26 But his wife looked back behind him, and she became (hayeta) a pillar of salt.

[@No-body369]

Exactly. In addition to many original ancient versions of this text in the Chaldee version, Arabic version and Septuagient where they ALL say Became; you can find much evidence in the kjv bible. 2nd Peter ch 3 is about the 3 world ages. Other verses related to the 3 earth ages can be found in Jer 1:15 4:22-28, Col 2:8, Gal 4:3, Isiah 45:18, Job 38:1-7, Eze 28:12-17, Eph 1:1-14, Rev 12:1 Its easy to study and find using a KJV Companion bible (the Authorized Version of 1611 by Kregel publishing) and a strongs concordance. It references every word in the bible back to the original Hebrew and Greek.

[@ditchner]

Dr. Heiser. I’m currently writing a book which includes a section comparing the biblical creation account with the theory of evolution. I strongly disagree with your arguments and conclusion about gap theory so please allow me to explain. To make it clear, it is important to remove irrelevant discussion about the conditions of the earth, whether death was present, or the activities of Satan or other divine beings during the gap. These matters are irrelevant because we read that before God said “Let there be light” the Earth was already in existence as was its supply of water. That implies a gap of an indefinite period of time between the creation of the earth and water to the 6 days of creation. The translation of “and the earth was formless and void” vs “and the earth became formless and void” matters not to the simple question “was there a gap of an indefinite time period?” In 1814 (Thomas) Chalmers wrote of the concept of gap creationism, also known as the "gap theory", and subsequently spread its popularity through publications, lectures and sermons. He wrote of Genesis 1:1: "My own opinion, as published in 1814, is that it forms no part of the first day but refers to a period of indefinite antiquity when God created the worlds out of nothing. The commencement of the first day's work I hold to be the moving of God's Spirit upon the face of the waters. We can allow geology the amplest time... without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record." On the 2nd and 3rd days of creation God manipulated the “pre-6 day creation water” by 1. dividing it with the firmament and 2. gathering it to create seas and to reveal dry land that had previously been covered by it. To do these things, the water and the land had to already be present, yes? (but for how long? A nano-second? A billion years? God, in His wisdom left out that information). I disagree with Chalmers as I contend that the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters was near the end of the gap, rather than at the commencement of day 1 but in either case, there was a gap and Christians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries used to believe it. Now the majority of the Protestant denominations no longer support biblical creation as presented in genesis 1 and, instead, nod in approval of evolution (an impossibility of probability once you’ve run the numbers). So, Dr. Heiser, Please explain to me how there would not be a gap if the earth and its waters were created sometime before the 6 days of Genesis 1. Sincerely -D

[@DerrickthePinecone]

Did he ever respond to this? Perhaps email him the question, if not. I'm torn as to what to believe is the correct view, as I've held to the Gap Theory view for years, but this video has really shaken me and challenged that view, and has me scrambling to dig deeper, which is always a good thing.

[@eunidapieters9331]

Should we look at the true dating of all the Megalithic structures on our planet, the undeniable evidence of water erosion on them, the(later) time period of Creation, earth certainly was void and chaotic, (covered in water) and these marvels were here beneath the water mass, it suggests this planet must have been inhabited prior?

[@rebekahdonnelly2844]

Yes, like by the angels that fell with lucifer. They could have roamed the earth for thousands of gap years before or between the first couple of "days". Who knows?

[@PeteKaltsa]

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Why does everyone miss that. No gap. Everything made and complete within 6 days.

[@rebekahdonnelly2844]

The 24 hr day hadn't been made yet. The first "day" could have been a thousand "years" long.

[@christypurcella8561]

Rebekah Donnelly time is very well described throughout the biblical text and is aligned with astronomy, not a false assumption by human interpretation.

[@rebekahdonnelly2844]

@@christypurcella8561 it is after the sun and moon were created. When earth time was created. Please don't accuse me of having a "false assumption" just because you disagree with me. Provide actual support for your point of view not just rude comments. Yes, earth time is currently aligned with astronomy, but astronomy wasn't created on day 1. 😉 I encourage you to re-read and consider the facts.

[@rebekahdonnelly2844]

@@christypurcella8561 literally no one knows exactly when earth time was created, that's why it's a theory and can't be proven. The exact same with people wanting to beleive the 6 days were all 24 hours long. No one could possibly know that because they weren't there. They equally have the exact same about of validity.

[@ZionKid95]

@@rebekahdonnelly2844 The bible defindes the length of a day: it was evening and it was morning: one day. So one rotation of earth = one day. God created the light on the 1st day and separated light and darkness, so earth was illuminated on one side while the other side was dark. Then He continues to create the atmosphere on day 2, dry land and PLANTS on day 3 and then sun, moon and stars on day 4. If until the 4th day those days were 1000s of years long, how should the plants survive the long night? And why would God suddenly change the speed of earth's rotation? That makes no sense to me.

[@chrissanfino761]

But when would the chaos serpent, the leviathan (in Isaiah) be banished to the abyss. Heiser clearly believes the leviathan is not just a plesiosaurus. There are gap theorists that do not believe in millions of years but place this event between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It's a bit more complicated.

[@mxcollin95]

You just answered about ten questions I had about this verse so thank you!!! Would you please consider doing a series on how to do proper exegesis??? (Would you pray about doing this...please, please, please! 🙏)

[@FringePop321]

Hey, Collin. That is a topic we will keep in mind for future episodes, thanks for the suggestion. In the mean time, you can look at drmsh.com/exegesis/ for more information about exegesis. Thank you for watching the show!

[@danabrattlof989]

Very helpful! Thanks, Mike!

[@a.j.beltran4795]

Yes v2 starts with a disjunctive or better called adversative clause which strikes out the idea that v1 is a title. If v2 starts with an adversative clause, what is it opposing about except v1. Something to think about.

[@coolnegative]

Do we have any clue when God created the innumerable different classes and types of the heavenly hosts? Or are they eternal (with no origin) the same as God?

[@stewbroccachiklis8481]

God is the only eternal being, The other heavenly host would seem to have been created before Genesis.

[@coolnegative]

@@stewbroccachiklis8481 that's always been my line of thinking. However, the older I get and the more I'm in the word, the more I realize that I dont really know anything. So I always appreciate getting other believers input and points of view. Thank you and blessings!

[@mbgrafix]

Isaiah 46:9 "...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." -------- Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” There are more verses of scripture which reveal this truth...but even with just these two, one can settle the fact that God is the only, truly eternal, non-created being.

[@mrvax2]

Thank you Dr.Heiser. I suppose there are things we will not be certain on until we reach eternity.

[@timsharpe6652]

Right . And even super smarts like Heiser compare with Gods omniscience. Well there are no comparisons !! Still finite minds even too smarty pants as Michael hehe 😁

[@dyerseve07]

Not really, if you read your bible, the answer is there in Exodus 20:11, Moses tells that God created everything (that is) in 6 days. Pretty simple to understand. You just actually have to pick up the bible and read it. Not go off of man's "theory".

[@ethelpalmer9454]

You are such a lovable nerd!! ❤

[@rigavitch]

I could have sworn I've watched a Heiser explanation of this that's at odds with this one....weird

[@wiggelpuppy5474]

The first spoken substance is light There is water, darkness, spatial orientation (above) before light. Those things had to be here before the first day

[@HiVoltish]

What age was Adam when created by God? Can God create things with age? Did God raise Adam from an infant or did he create him as an adult? Can God create a rock with age?

[@lynnv8501]

Adam was not created a baby. That would make no sense. He was mature.

[@TonyMontana-tm7ul]

So are we on round "two" as to the creation of heaven and earth?

[@theQandA]

This is part of the view he refutes in the video.

[@electricboogie709]

Yes! Love this channel. Number #1 Fan.

[@WhatEver-wj5yz]

Subtitles ...please...

[@bobericksen8295]

While I appreciate the depth of this analysis, it’s only necessary because worldly believers have been trying to fit worldly ideas like millions or billions of years into God’s inerrant and unchanging Word and have gone to great lengths to try to change what the text clearly says through extensive layers of interpretations. Do you really think this Moses meant to be misleading in writing Genesis? Of course not. Who was it written for? The greatest scholars of the day? Nope, for the former slaves of Egypt. It was written to be easy to understand and it is. And to believe anything other than 6 literal day creation and a young Earth is the say Genesis is intentionally misleading and you have to make the writing very complicated. But we don’t have to use their approach to dis-prove them. There are two very easy ways to know Genesis 1 refers to a literal 6 day creation and there was no “gap” with evil and death between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. 1) Exodus 20:11 clearly says 6 Day literal creation including the heavens and the earth, in perfect compliment to Genesis 1. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ We get our 7 day week from the Biblical account of creation… 2) On Day 6, after God completed creating everything, He said it was ALL VERY GOOD! “God saw ALL that He had made, and behold, it was VERY GOOD. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ Clearly VERY GOOD means nothing was evil so Lucifer had not rebelled yet and there was no pre-creation week sin or death. Everything in the Bible must agree, you can not isolate a verse or two and manipulate the meaning to where it no longer aligns with the rest of the Bible and claim it’s true. And the only reason so called believers do this is because they want to fit the world’s beliefs into God’s Word! That will never work and only shows they are still holding on to this world and therefore may not even be saved…

[@jenniferjones1299]

I recently discovered that the gap theory was developed by a Scottish pastor, Thomas Chalmers. He is found on a list of famous Freemasons. He developed his theory shortly before Darwin.

[@friendofyeshua8]

Not sure if his involvement with freemasonry had anything to do with the development of the Gap Theory. It's most likely just a case of misinterpretation on his part.

[@Okie8T9]

It's not insignificant though. Freemasonry is the contemporary nest of Gnostic & Luciferian philosophy.

[@jenniferjones1299]

Darwin’s father and brother were both Free_masons, so it is highly likely that Darwin either was as well or that he was highly influenced by it.

[@friendofyeshua8]

@@Okie8T9 Absolutely

[@friendofyeshua8]

@@jenniferjones1299 Even if that's true, Darwin was probably not a mason because an initiate must hold some sort of belief in a supreme deity in order to be inducted into the Scottish rite. They're usually sticklers about atheists joining their group.

[@mysticmouse7261]

Wonderfully precise and incontrovertible

[@delightk]

3:50 is where the video starts

[@newjar1997JT]

The problem with "any" Gap theory really, is that it puts death before Adam. God said everything was really without error when He created it. Perfect if you will. "Good" And after day 6 "very good". Even though the exact word is not used there, it is certainly implied in the creation of Lucifer/Satan. Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. If it was a "redo", how was it good/perfect with a fallen angel running around? It really calls into question what God calls "good" at that point. And really a need for a savior at that point as well. I mean, if He redeemed us, and some day the entire universe, “which groaneth” even until now waiting to be delivered, why doesn’t he just do it the way He did it prior to that? What was the point of Jesus’s sacrifice? If He can simply call an audible, and perform a "redo"? Ezekiel 28:13 really suggests that Satan was perfect in the garden at one time. And we certainly don’t know how much time passed until the fall. But we certainly know it’s not “thousands” of years even then, because of Adam’s age. I would even suggest that Adam was probably about the same physical years as Jesus when he was crucified. God tends to work in parallels. Satan was probably created with the other angels on day 2 when "the heavens" were created. Makes sense. Because “heavens” is plural. And we know from scripture there are three. And the angels were probably there until the dry land was created the very next day. And then they could come down to the earth as well. So, they could rejoice about the other days of creation that would directly follow. The dry land foundations weren't created until the 3rd day. The angels or "morning stars" singing together could still fit that time line. And note that “all” the “sons of God”(angels) shouted for joy.....When they saw the creation. No fall had happened yet. See? You are assuming "foundations" mean the same as day 1. When it clearly says, foundations of “the earth” in Job 38:4 And goes on to say what they are “fastened” to. Indicating the dry land. Not the water itself. There again, when God created everything, it was perfect. Satan as well. When sin came into the world, it was no longer perfect. Death came in as well. But there is the question isn’t it? Did Satan’s sin taint our perfect world? Obviously it didn’t, because sin was not really here. The creation was still perfect. The physical that is. And our spiritual, for the moment. Satan is a “spiritual” being, so though he may have sinned before Adam, it didn’t effect the physical world that was created for humans to enjoy and subdue. The Hebrew word for replenish can be simply defined as “fill” as well. Not necessarily "refill". And the Hebrew word for void can just simply mean "empty". Affirmed by "without form". There are really no indications of a disaster or a "re" filling according to certain definitions. I really believe that the discussion on the “Gap” falls under the “endless genealogies” sort of debate. And furthers confusion, not edification. Probably best to get back on track with other topics.

[@No-body369]

In addition to many original ancient versions of this text in the Chaldee version, Arabic version and Septuagient where they ALL say Became; you can find much evidence in the bible. 2nd Peter ch 3 is about the 3 world ages. Other verses related to the 3 earth ages can be found in Jer 1:15 4:22-28, Col 2:8, Gal 4:3, Isiah 45:18, Job 38:1-7, Eze 28:12-17, Eph 1:1-14, Rev 12:1

[@flashflood4]

I wonder when God created the water?

[@flashflood4]

@4u soul I'm not saying I necessarily believe in the gap theory, but where does it say water and earth combine? Why is it a stupid question?

[@flashflood4]

@4u soul So just to clarify, are you saying that God created the waters on day 1 because the waters and land are a part of the earth? If so, do you have any thoughts as to why God says, "Let there be..." when He creates something, but why Genesis never says "Let there be water" or "Let there be land," but rather the water is simply there and he tells the land to appear? Also, do you have any thoughts on Job 37:4-7, where the morning stars/sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundation of the earth? If the earth was created on day 1 with water and land a part of that already, then when were the morning stars/sons of God created? Just gauging your thoughts, I'm not asking sarcastically.

[@Giveitallyougot]

@4u soul it's not a stupid question.

[@waltermarkley3385]

@4u soul, anything you have to say after calling someones question stupid is worthless! Suggest you read and study 1 Corinthians 13 before trying to show off your knowledge.

[@flashflood4]

@4u soul Thanks for your thoughts - I did not mean the question to be sarcastic (it seems that one's tone of voice is hard to communicate through text). Based on your responses to my last question, you seem to believe that things were created and pre-existed before "Day 1," is that right? That's what I was hinting at with my question, "I wonder when God created the water?" It seemed to me that the water would have been created at some point before "Day 1," and therefore other created things could have been around too. I'm not sure about the gap theory, and I definitely don't take Jeremiah 4 to be proof of the gap theory, but I do find it fascinating that the water and land seem to pre-exist "Day 1." I'm sorry if I came across antagonistic, it was not meant that way.

[@No-body369]

You must research the scriptures FULLY and not rely on an algorithm to help you find the truth. I would suggest you get a KJV Companion bible (the Authorized Version of 1611 by Kregel publishing) and a strongs concordance. It references every word in the bible back to the original Hebrew and Greek. In addition to many original ancient versions of this text in the Chaldee version, Arabic version and Septuagient where they ALL say Became; you can find much evidence in the bible. 2nd Peter ch 3 is about the 3 world ages. Other verses related to the 3 earth ages can be found in Jer 1:15 4:22-28, Col 2:8, Gal 4:3, Isiah 45:18, Job 38:1-7, Eze 28:12-17, Eph 1:1-14, Rev 12:1

[@asg32000]

Dr. Heiser, thank you for your ministry. I love your books and videos! I have some push-back for this video: I don't believe you have presented the most coherent form of what some people call "gap theory." I commend to you-and to anyone else reading this comment-Dr. Hugh Ross's reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

[@rigavitch]

I love Hugh Ross!

[@christopherc7953]

Thank you. God bless you and your family.

[@Ninja4hire110]

1. We do know Satan's rebellion took place before the fall of man, since the serpent was the tempter that led to the fall. 2. you said verse 1 and 2 do not indicate sequence in the Hebrew, wouldn't that support the gap theory? 3. Maybe "Tohu Bohu" being used in other places as judgment doesn't guarantee that it is being used as judgment in Genesis, but how can you rule it out as a possibility 4. In science we have the story of a meteor falling on earth and destroying the dinosaurs and probably all other living things. Wouldn't it make sense that this meteor could have been the fall of Satan? Did not Jesus seem to testify to this when he said "he saw Satan fall like lightning?"

[@No-body369]

When "a teacher" needed to use an algorithm to find info about this subject instead of studying the word in depth thats all I needed to hear. He dont study imo. In addition to many original ancient versions of this text in the Chaldee version, Arabic version and Septuagient where they ALL say Became; you can find much evidence in the bible. 2nd Peter ch 3 is about the 3 world ages. Other verses related to the 3 earth ages can be found in Jer 1:15 4:22-28, Col 2:8, Gal 4:3, Isiah 45:18, Job 38:1-7, Eze 28:12-17, Eph 1:1-14, Rev 12:1

[@chrisjackson7625]

that makes sense

[@dynamicloveministries334]

I cannot see the world as 6000 years old. And to blame everything on the flood of Noah not sensible according to me. I have this question. How does belief in the Gap theory change the GOSPEL. If you answer this, please give a short definition of what the Gospel is also. Thanks.

[@mitpoker7319]

Not to mention that the Bible does not even mention dinosaurs is also something worth considering. The lion gets more cred than any other predator in the bible, but we already know that the Tyrannosaurus would eat a lion for breakfast any day of the week in the jungle. Yet, even then, the lion is still king of jungle, so what's the deal? Could it be that the Tyrannosaurus existed and went extinct before Adam and Eve? Hmm

[@realitywins6457]

Stellar, Dr. Heiser. Can you do a review of Dr. Lennox's "Seven Days That Divide The World"? Thank you, sir

[@cardenashamlet]

That's why it is called the "gap theory". It's a conjecture to illustrate that something probably happened, but we don't know, it's simply a speculation to satisfy human's curiosity.

[@cvdevol]

All "without form and void" means is that matter was not yet differentiated into varieties of forms. It was amorphous -- literally "formless", and it was undifferentiated -- i.e. it was like a "void" or "nothingness" where you can't tell what is what.

[@KingjamesAV1611]

No, what your proposing is God worked through Theistic Evolution. That's not at all how God created anything.

[@DustinBenedict27]

If you say it was a void of nothingness, then where does the water come into play? Nothingness would mean nothing right?

[@tsevaoth]

Wel, like Genesis stuff, i heard on youtube some rabi said that the Snake hwo corrupted Adam and Eve was a literally a being with hands and legs etc. How they belive that? What ideas support that theory?

[@ZionKid95]

I dare to imagine the snakes in Eden looked like chinese dragons with wings - after all, God curses the snake to wander the earth on its belly, thereby taking away its wings and legs or whatever extremities it had before. Also, this would explain man's idea on what dragons look like. And Satan is picutred as a dragon an a snake in the apocalypse. Does this help you?

[@jasong9472]

Ha... So when did Satan Fall. Did it happen without time, that is the only answer, if one denies that Satan might haven fallen between 1 and 2? So Satan either sinned, before the 7 days or during the 7 days. Or Satan sinned in a timeless place, and then God bound him to our timeline . But regardless since mankind is bound by time, then our perspective is that of time. The Bible is written to man from God, why would he therefore utilize language that falls outside of our time perspective, when giving the chronology of all things? The logic seems illogical to me. Therefore Heiser is promoting that Satan fell during the 7 days of creation. Right? If that is the case, point this out in the Bible please. We must use logic with knowledge and an eye to how Gods creation works.

[@matthew8720]

Jason G “God blessed the seventh day, and he sanctified it, because on it he rested from all his work ...God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you will be cursed more than any domesticated animal and more than any wild animal. On your belly you shall go and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. “? “the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan”

[@GodsGiftStudio]

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. NO GAP

[@pilsenoffice3591]

It's not enough to try and disprove someone's stand on a subject you have to replace it with your reasonable stand on the subject and this video just doesn't do it for me.

[@matturban9103]

The Earth was like a ball of clay in a sculptor's hand. It held all the chemicals God wanted to use for water,air, rocks and life. God just called them out. Then he sculpted Adam. No gap.

[@randellbrown3365]

except it was a ball of water that in the beginning was called dry land. that's what earth means

[@crusher1980]

Its not a theory, its a fact. The church always have believed in this and then abondened it when Darwin came along ...

[@wcharliewilson7004]

Those who believe in GT can't come to grips with a young earth and use such verses to infer age...

[@SimmonsOpinions]

I believe GT, and I'm fine with a young earth.

[@drewdog365]

@@SimmonsOpinions Would love to hear how that works in theory.

[@Kevin_KC0SHO]

Excellent information I really enjoy the details thanks Mike

[@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117]

Mike, Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy wants a piece of you regarding the Nephilim. I'll get you a Chick-Fil-A or Popeye's gift card (your choice) if you go debate him. Your friend, T-Hood :)

[@randomango2789]

Tyler Hood I’d love to see that debate but unfortunately, Dr Heiser doesn’t do debates 😢

[@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117]

RandoMango that’s why I dangled the carrot! 😉 🥕

[@blockpartyvintage1568]

He won't

[@timsharpe6652]

@Vladamir. Ever heard of Apologetics? Ever heard of 1 Peter 3 15-16? Lol 😉

[@justsayin9180]

If verse 2 should be changed because "God would not have created it that way", then all the verses after verse 2 until they agree that God would have created it that way must precede verse 2. But then verse 2 would have to be ripped out of the Bible to avoid an infinite loop. So that destroys that reasoning. But a judgement before verse 2? Again not possible. The key to prove this is the deeply buried secret hidden in verse 3. What kind of light is it? It's not Jesus, because he is the one creating. It's not any other source of light either, because they come later. I won't say what that light was, but I will give scripture for you to come to your own conclusion. Carefully read: Genesis 1:1-10. Psalm 104:1-9. 2 Samuel 22:8-16. Ezekiel 28:12-19. Now go read the first 3 passages again. KJB only.

[@mitpoker7319]

Jesus is also a creation of God, dude. Jesus was created to redeem man from sin. And fulfilled by God himself when he established himself as a mortal man to die for our sins. God already knew that man was going to screw up, hence a redeemer was already put in place day one, the light. Even Jesus said himself that he is the light of world. And this statement can go both ways and keep its true meaning. You have to understand that when the bible talks about spiritual things, its 4d chess and goes beyond normal human comprehension.

[@charlessheetz9402]

closed captioning needed

[@Giveitallyougot]

Yes please!

[@jgamez5023]

Thank you, Dr. Heiser !

[@beau1366]

When do u think the fall of lucifer happened?

[@TheRazmotaz]

paul marcum possibly mans fall was based on the initial fall of the satan. For instance, what if the satans fall was the actual deception of Eve? The serpent being was the satan. Why do I lean that way in thought? If it did not occur at the same time, then the satan was wandering the garden as a fallen being and harboring sin there before the fall of man. This would make sin present in the garden the fall which cursed us all as well as the earth!

[@SimmonsOpinions]

@@TheRazmotaz man sinning is what cursed the earth. Eve sinned before Adam, yet is by Adam that sin cursed us.

[@TheRazmotaz]

Alex Simmons I agree, but that was not the question nor what I was responding to. Adams sin has greater impact because of Adam’s authority. And how does that relate to when Lucifer fell?

[@SimmonsOpinions]

Razmo I was responding to your assertion that Satan fell at the same time as Eve. Satan had already fallen. Sin was already in the garden before Adam fell. It need not occur at the same time.

[@TheRazmotaz]

Alex Simmons ah, ok. I see what your point was. However, you are in the same predicament as I am - there is no scripture (that I know of) that tells me “when” Satan fell only the circumstances. Everything else is a picture we build in our own heads.

[@marksepulveda5912]

I've been a gap theorist for a long time and in my study's, I've never used the word "became" I have found the gap within scripture.

[@Giveitallyougot]

Mark is this one the scriptures used to support the gap theory? Jeremiah 4: 23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. 25 I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. 26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

[@marksepulveda5912]

@@Giveitallyougot Hello, No, That's more of a prophetic passage of whats to come. Going over the entire chapter of Jeremiah 4 looks like its after a traumatic event such as a nuclear war would bring. The scriptures I was referring to were: Isaiah 45:18 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. We know that God created the heavens and the earth, we know that He made it to be inhabited, after all He created Adam and Eve. So why would the bible reiterate that God did not create the world in vain? I truly believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.... That's it. He didn't create it to be empty. If God created something, why in verse 2 do we see it with out form and void. I could go on but here's the next scripture. 2nd Peter 3:5-7 5 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: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 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. This is most commonly translated as Noah's flood. But if that were so, why would God re-create the heavens? Verse 7 says; "but the heavens and the earth which are now" In Noah's flood, God just destroyed the earth with water. The heavens were not re-created, they just opened up and rained. In verse 5, "the heavens were of Old" suggest Genesis 1:1 before the fall of satan. That's why verse 7 continues to say that "by the same word are kept in store, RESERVED unto FIRE against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" I'm pretty sure there were ungodly men before Noah's flood, henceforth the great flood. With prayer and supplication, this was what was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit. God Bless You

[@Giveitallyougot]

@@marksepulveda5912 Jeremiah 4:1 starts with this statement, “If you will return, O Israel,” declares the LORD . . . (NASB) Jeremiah 4:1 This first verse tells us that God is speaking to the people of Israel. Then in Jeremiah 4:4 God warns them to repent of their sins or His wrath will come upon them. Then in verse 14, God warns them again, Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved . . . (NASB) Jeremiah 4:14 God is warning them that destruction is coming upon the land of Israel unless they repent of their sins. The warnings continue. Finally in verses 23-28, the destruction of the land of Israel is described in dramatic imagery. In order to show how serious God is, the prophet uses imagery from Genesis 1:2 and says the land will be “formless and void.” If we look at the verses just after this passage, we see soldiers, death, destruction, and people. Jeremiah 4:23-28 is describing a military invasion. History tells us that it is the Babylonian army which did this. The description is the coming disaster upon the land of Israel.

[@marksepulveda5912]

@@Giveitallyougot I must clarify, what I prayed about and what the Holy Spirit showed me was the scriptures in Isaiah and 2 Peter. But I will study more into this passage as well. Thank you

[@scottstokes822]

Everything that materializes on earth becomes corrupt

[@nonnie2428]

Robin D.Bullock explains what that “something “ that happened was.

[@jasong9472]

It is about time!

[@jonmowbray8937]

Read the 'World that was ' it talks about the 1st flood

[@JohnnyRebKy]

One thing is for sure. We are all going to find out sooner or later. But I have trouble with a 6,000 year old earth. I also have trouble with darwin. The gap theory makes more sense than either one of those.

[@Mimijat]

Conclusion, please.😞

[@Truthseeking2022]

Thank you! CN you explain why God said “replenish the Earth” instead of fill the earth? ThanK you again!!

[@starwarsisdead5731]

replenish used to also include the meaning, 'to fill'. Modern dictionaries now translate it as, 'to fill again'.

[@a.t.strock2960]

Starwars is Dead, that doesn’t make sense. The prefix “re-“ always means again.

[@starwarsisdead5731]

@@a.t.strock2960 Wrong. Modern usage uses like you say. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replenish First def matches modern usage. Second def shows the old way it was used.

[@Giveitallyougot]

The word ‘replenish’ occurs seven times in the KJV: here in Genesis 1:28, again in Genesis 9:1 (both times in the imperative), and five times in three major prophets in the passive and causative forms. So does the Hebrew original in these cases really mean ‘re-fill’? But before getting into the Hebrew, we must ask why the KJV translators used the verb ‘replenish’. An examination of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) shows that the word was used to mean ‘fill’ from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. In no case quoted in these five centuries does it unambiguously mean ‘re-fill’. The OED defines ‘replenish’ as having 10 meanings throughout its history: A. Replenished (adjective): fully stocked; provided, supplied; filled, pervaded; physically or materially filled; full, made full. B. To replenish: make full, fill, stock with, as in: ‘This man made the Newe Forest, and replenyshed it with wylde bestes’ (AD1494); inhabit, settle, occupy the whole of; fill with food, satiate; fill (space) with; fill (heart) with (a feeling); fill up again; fill up (a vacant office) (AD1632); become full, attain to fullness. Note that only ‘i’ includes the idea ‘again’. This use first appears in a poem in 1612. It appears again in Pepys’ Diary, where he says: ‘buy ... to replenish the stores’. Only the year 1612 is anywhere near the date of the KJV (1611), and it’s a poetic use. The Hebrew original of Genesis 1:28 is not poetic. All other uses range from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, when it tends to die out in normal writing. The English word comes through a lot of changes from Latin pleo or repleo. There’s also the adjective plenus, ‘filled’. So we must now trace the prefix re-and see what it means. In very old Latin it did mean ‘again’, but by the time the Bible went into Latin it had lost some of this meaning. We see this in the later French word remplir, which doesn’t mean ‘refill’, but ‘fill’. In late Latin it was re-in-plere, and re- had already lost its basic idea of ‘again’. In many other words it now meant ‘completely’ or ‘altogether’. Compare ‘research’, meaning to ‘search completely’. We notice also that two of the meanings in history include ‘making full’. In similar English words we have this meaning: ‘refresh’ means to make fresh; ‘relax’ to make lax; ‘release’ to make loose or free. But when the KJV was translated, ‘replenish’ was just a scholarly word for ‘fill’. They almost certainly came to use it because an old word ‘plenish’ was dying out. We have seen that Latin re- originally meant ‘again’ but then developed new overtones. Before the Bible was translated, repleo, the word that gave us ‘replenish’, normally meant just ‘fill’. Here are some examples from Latin authors: fill up the number of (Livy) what they lacked in votes they made up for in noise (Ovid) he filled the battlefield with men (before the battle) (Livy) fill veins with blood (Livy) filled the crowd with his speech (Virgil) civil law full of right knowledge (Cicero) There’s another English word that comes from repleo. It is ‘replete’. We can say ‘I am replete’, using a politer word than ‘full up’ with food. It doesn’t mean ‘full again’. So my understanding of the word in the KJV is that ‘replenish’ then just meant ‘fill up’, though some hundred years later it began to mean ‘refill’ when some scholars convinced people that re- should really mean ‘again’. So in 1611 it’s quite clear the translators didn’t necessarily convey anything about a second filling of the earth in Genesis 1:28. Now as to the Hebrew word itself: it is male’, the simple verb ‘fill’. (Strong’s concordance No. 4390.) In its various forms it occurs 306 times in the Old Testament. Only seven times does the KJV translate it as ‘replenish’, but 195 times ‘fill’, ‘filled’ or ‘full’. Other times it becomes ‘fulfil’ or has some idiomatic meaning. Quite clearly the idea of refilling is completely absent from the Hebrew. There’s no doubt on that score. So the English of the KJV is the only problem. We all know that languages change over the years. So that’s the real explanation of the misunderstanding about this verse that tells us that God commanded the first humans to fill up completely the earth He had prepared for them. Finally, the proof is that the similar phrase in verse 22 has the translation ‘fill’ in the KJV. Here are the parallel cases: Verse 22:peru u - rbu u - mil’u eth hammayim be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the watersVerse 28:peru u - rbu u - mil’u eth ha’arets be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Thus it appears that the change to ‘replenish’ was merely a stylish variation. Summary The word translated ‘replenish’ (KJV) simply means ‘fill’ in the Hebrew. In the English of King James’ day, ‘replenish’ also usually meant ‘fill’, not ‘refill’. The word ‘replenish’ therefore cannot be used to support ideas about a previous creation, which was destroyed. In any case, such erroneous theories, invented in response to the ‘millions of years’ idea, must hold to the unbiblical notion that there was death and suffering before Adam’s sin

[@Truthseeking2022]

@BB. thank you!! Great explanation! Most pre Adamic teachers use this word to say there was life here and we need to re fill! I appreciate your answer so much!

[@Scyllax]

No.

[@jeff1992000]

Amen! God created ALL things in 6 literal days just as HE stated in exodus 20:11 Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV) Day 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Exodus 20:11 King James Version (KJV) 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.

[@jasontrofern]

Apparently, the Hebrew experts of the 21st century know more about Hebrew than the Hebrew experts did 150 years ago, such as Albert Barnes, author of Barnes Notes on the Bible!!

[@benjaminjoseph3392]

I've heard several of his videos. Is this guy an actual believer in Jesus Christ as the savior of the world? If yes, then why? What are his proofs, since he is so hung up on proofs? All I hear is him attacking the Bible, and that is our only 'proof' for Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ.

[@johnpeters2526]

Thank you for this clear information.

[@No-body369]

He mislead you. In addition to many original ancient versions of this text in the Chaldee version, Arabic version and Septuagient where they ALL say Became; you can find much evidence in the bible. 2nd Peter ch 3 is about the 3 world ages. Other verses related to the 3 earth ages can be found in Jer 1:15 4:22-28, Col 2:8, Gal 4:3, Isiah 45:18, Job 38:1-7, Eze 28:12-17, Eph 1:1-14, Rev 12:1

[@espress0man]

Too bad... would rather have dinosaurs in the gap than on the ark

[@HiVoltish]

How do we know they weren't created by the Watchers that "kept not their first estate"? 1st Enoch speaks of them creating monsters.

[@EZLivin-zk4gm]

I totally disagree but appreciate your insight.

[@SimmonsOpinions]

2 Peter 3:5-7. There are two floods. One destroyed the heavens and earth, the other just the earth. Jeremiah 4:23 - "without form and void." This is the only other time the phrase is used. Using "law of first mention" provides context. Adam was told to "replenish" the earth, just as Noah was after the flood. Again, law of first mention. Arguing against Rev. 12 is not evidence against the gap either. We still know that Satan and his angels fell at some point. If not during the gap, then when? And what are the unclean and familiar spirits found throughout the Bible? Where did they come from? When God said, "let there be light," there were no sun or stars. Where did the light come from? If it was already there (God's glory, perhaps), why would it not already be shining on the earth? If the earth was flooded (2 Peter 3 again) and covered in water (possibly a layer of ice by that point), it makes sense that God removed that water that the Spirit of God moved upon (Gen 1:2) which allowed light to shine once again on the face of the earth He created in Gen. 1:1. There is a gap in the genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5. There is a gap between the testaments. There is precedent for gaps throughout the Bible. Just because there is no explicit mention of the gap between Gen. 1:1 and 2 does not mean it is not there. I do not read Gen. 1:2 as "became," because that is not what my Bible says. Arguing that point does not disprove the gap. Also, Gap Theory does not rely on "millions of years." Some people put that out there. I believe there is a gap, but it could be hundreds of years for all I know. Perhaps it was but a minute. Maybe billions of years passed. This is not a valid argument against the gap being found in Scripture. You can disagree with the gap. To say that there is no proof from the Bible is just a misunderstanding or an outright lie.

[@Giveitallyougot]

The word ‘replenish’ occurs seven times in the KJV: In Genesis 1:28, again in Genesis 9:1 (both times in the imperative), and five times in three major prophets in the passive and causative forms. So does the Hebrew original in these cases really mean ‘re-fill’? But before getting into the Hebrew, we must ask why the KJV translators used the verb ‘replenish’. An examination of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) shows that the word was used to mean ‘fill’ from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. In no case quoted in these five centuries does it unambiguously mean ‘re-fill’. The OED defines ‘replenish’ as having 10 meanings throughout its history: A. Replenished (adjective): fully stocked; provided, supplied; filled, pervaded; physically or materially filled; full, made full. B. To replenish: make full, fill, stock with, as in: ‘This man made the Newe Forest, and replenyshed it with wylde bestes’ (AD1494); inhabit, settle, occupy the whole of; fill with food, satiate; fill (space) with; fill (heart) with (a feeling); fill up again; fill up (a vacant office) (AD1632); become full, attain to fullness. Note that only ‘i’ includes the idea ‘again’. This use first appears in a poem in 1612. It appears again in Pepys’ Diary, where he says: ‘buy ... to replenish the stores’. Only the year 1612 is anywhere near the date of the KJV (1611), and it’s a poetic use. The Hebrew original of Genesis 1:28 is not poetic. All other uses range from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, when it tends to die out in normal writing. The English word comes through a lot of changes from Latin pleo or repleo. There’s also the adjective plenus, ‘filled’. So we must now trace the prefix re-and see what it means. In very old Latin it did mean ‘again’, but by the time the Bible went into Latin it had lost some of this meaning. We see this in the later French word remplir, which doesn’t mean ‘refill’, but ‘fill’. In late Latin it was re-in-plere, and re- had already lost its basic idea of ‘again’. In many other words it now meant ‘completely’ or ‘altogether’. Compare ‘research’, meaning to ‘search completely’. We notice also that two of the meanings in history include ‘making full’. In similar English words we have this meaning: ‘refresh’ means to make fresh; ‘relax’ to make lax; ‘release’ to make loose or free. But when the KJV was translated, ‘replenish’ was just a scholarly word for ‘fill’. They almost certainly came to use it because an old word ‘plenish’ was dying out. We have seen that Latin re- originally meant ‘again’ but then developed new overtones. Before the Bible was translated, repleo, the word that gave us ‘replenish’, normally meant just ‘fill’. Here are some examples from Latin authors: fill up the number of (Livy) what they lacked in votes they made up for in noise (Ovid) he filled the battlefield with men (before the battle) (Livy) fill veins with blood (Livy) filled the crowd with his speech (Virgil) civil law full of right knowledge (Cicero) There’s another English word that comes from repleo. It is ‘replete’. We can say ‘I am replete’, using a politer word than ‘full up’ with food. It doesn’t mean ‘full again’. So my understanding of the word in the KJV is that ‘replenish’ then just meant ‘fill up’, though some hundred years later it began to mean ‘refill’ when some scholars convinced people that re- should really mean ‘again’. So in 1611 it’s quite clear the translators didn’t necessarily convey anything about a second filling of the earth in Genesis 1:28. Now as to the Hebrew word itself: it is male’, the simple verb ‘fill’. (Strong’s concordance No. 4390.) In its various forms it occurs 306 times in the Old Testament. Only seven times does the KJV translate it as ‘replenish’, but 195 times ‘fill’, ‘filled’ or ‘full’. Other times it becomes ‘fulfil’ or has some idiomatic meaning. Quite clearly the idea of refilling is completely absent from the Hebrew. There’s no doubt on that score. So the English of the KJV is the only problem. We all know that languages change over the years. So that’s the real explanation of the misunderstanding about this verse that tells us that God commanded the first humans to fill up completely the earth He had prepared for them. Finally, the proof is that the similar phrase in verse 22 has the translation ‘fill’ in the KJV. Here are the parallel cases: Verse 22:peru u - rbu u - mil’u eth hammayim be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the watersVerse 28:peru u - rbu u - mil’u eth ha’arets be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Thus it appears that the change to ‘replenish’ was merely a stylish variation The word translated ‘replenish’ (KJV) simply means ‘fill’ in the Hebrew. In the English of King James’ day, ‘replenish’ also usually meant ‘fill’,not ‘refill’. The word ‘replenish’ therefore cannot be used to support ideas about a previous creation, which was destroyed. In any case, such erroneous theories, invented in response to the ‘millions of years’ idea, must hold to the unbiblical notion that there was death and suffering before Adam’s sin

[@SimmonsOpinions]

B B ai appreciate your response. Context is clear, regardless of your lengthy defense, that “replenish” is the same context in Gen. 1:28 and Noah. The context is a planet destroying flood and the need to replenish life. Whether literally replenish or “fill,” the context defines the term. Death did exist prior to the fall. The tree of life sustained life (see Rev. 21 where it does so again in New Jerusalem). When Adam “died,” it was a spiritual death. He did not physically die the day he ate the fruit (which God said he would), but his spirit died. In no Scripture does it say Adam was created immortal. In fact, read what God said when he set the cherub at the gate of Eden. Why would he be concerned about keeping Adam from the tree of good and evil if it was not the source of his long life? You are filling in the gap (pun intended) by interpreting Scripture as you just did.

[@Giveitallyougot]

@@SimmonsOpinions who died prior to adam & eve?

[@SimmonsOpinions]

B B No one, because they were eating of the tree of life. That does not mean that they couldn’t die if they stopped eating from the tree. As a silly gap theorist, I would say whatever lived on the earth prior to Gen. 1:2, but you’d never accept that answer anyway.

[@Giveitallyougot]

@@SimmonsOpinions so if none died why would there be a need to "replenish" the earth?

[@SirMillz]

I needed to see this video. The Dr. pretty much puts the Gap Theory to bed.

[@No-body369]

No it doesn't because he mislead you. He had to use an algorithm to find info. That immediately told me he does NOT read the bible or study it in depth. In addition to many original ancient versions of this text like in the Chaldee version, Arabic version and Septuagient where they ALL say the world Became void; you can find much evidence in the KJV bible. 2nd Peter ch 3 is about the 3 world ages. Other verses related to the 3 earth ages can be found in Jer 1:15 4:22-28, Col 2:8, Gal 4:3, Isiah 45:18, Job 38:1-7, Eze 28:12-17, Eph 1:1-14, Rev 12:1 I would suggest you get a Companion Bible and a Strongs Concordance if you want to go deep into the word and it's true meanings back to the Hebrew and Greek. It was the best thing I ever did. Now I read the bible with understanding.

[@jreaves11]

Excellent and very clear. A similar argument is advanced in a favorite study bible of mine--the CSB Study Bible--see page.5 or commentary on Genesis 1:2.

[@RachelLWolfe]

One of the things he gets wrong is that you don't need to have millions of years in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 in order for the gap theory to be valid or correct. Not all "gap theorists" use this gap as a method for validating the theory of evolution or to support a theory that the Earth is millions of years old. You can be a young Earth creationist, and still believe there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis. It could have been 100 years that passed for all we know. You don't need to do mental gymnastics to understand this, but closed minded people who refuse to have an honest, intelligent conversation with "gap theorists" will say this and use this to refute the theory. And saying that gap theory is "built on nothing but silence", is disingenuous. The Bible omits a lot of details about a lot of lives of important people throughout the Bible, including the life of Jesus. We hear almost nothing about his life has a child, yet we know it happened. He was born, he grew up, went through childhood and adolescence, but the Bible is all but mum on that part of His life. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Good doesn't give us a play by play of every single thing that occurred from the creation of the Earth until the last period was penned for the book of Revelation. ‭Job 38:4-7 NKJV‬ [4] “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. [5] Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? [6] *To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, [7] When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?"* One thing that those who oppose the gap theory haven't posited is when they think the fall of Satan occurred. Surely it was before God placed Adam and Eve in the garden, seeing as that by this time, Satan was already fallen, hence his temptation of Eve, and the fall of man being the result of her falling for Satan's temptation. There are plenty of verses throughout the Bible that give clues to what happened though it is mum on when. That doesn't invalidate the gap theory.