The Great Deep and the Genesis Gap

Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

There is a “great deep”  of water separating the third heaven and second heaven and the face of it is frozen like glass according to the Bible (Gen. 1:6-8; Ps. 18:9-11, 29:3, 29:10, 104:3, 148:4;  Job 26:7-13, 37:18, 38:30-32; Hab. 3:15; Rev. 4:6, 15:2; Jer. 10:13, 51:16, etc.). 

Genesis 1:6 states that the firmament (the atmosphere and outer space, or 1st and 2nd heavens) was placed in the “midst” of the waters to divide the waters from the waters. The water is already present on the 1st and 2nd days of creation. On the second day of creation, God created a "firmament"; He did not create the waters on that day. The waters are present before the first day of creation (vs. 2). God did not create the Earth or the water during the creation week. He created the Earth in Genesis 1:1 and by Genesis 1:2 He has flooded it. The waters are already present, both on Earth (waters under the firmament) and above the Earth in the heavens (waters above the firmament). Many of the “young earth” creationists say that everything was created during the 6 days of creation, yet the Earth and the waters are already present (Gen. 1:2) before the week starts. 

As a side note, before any flat earth conspiracy theorists come forward talking about a “dome” over the earth being the firmament rather than the heavens themselves being the firmament, I would refer them to Genesis 1:20. “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” 

The “great deep”, the “waters above the heavens”, are mentioned many times in the Bible in the context of heaven, the stars, and God’s thrown. Job 26:13 mentions the “crooked serpent” in the context of these waters, which is no doubt the location of Leviathan. "In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." (Isa. 27:1).

Psalms 18:

[9] He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet.

[10] And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.

[11] He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. 

(context of the waters are the heavens and cherubs)

Psalms 29:3 The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters.

(context is where God is, the third Heaven)

Psalms 29:10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever.

(context is where God is, the third Heaven)

Psalms 33:

[6] By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
[7] He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

(context is the making of the heavens)

Psalms 93:

[2] Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
[3] The floods have lifted up, O LORD, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves.

(context is God's throne)

Psalms 104:

[1] Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
[2] Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
[3] Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

(context is the heavens)

Psalms 148:

[1] Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
[2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
[3] Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
[4] Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

(context is the heavens)

Job 26:

[7] He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
[8] He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
[9] He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it.
[10] He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
[11] The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
[12] He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud.
[13] By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

(the context is the heavens and God's throne)

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

(clearly a cross reference to the "sea of glass" that is spread out below the third Heaven [Rev. 4:6, 15:2]. The "face of the deep is frozen" as we will see in the next set of verses.)

Job 38:

[29] Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
[30] The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
[31] Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
[32] Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
[33] Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

(the context is the heavens and stars [pleiades, Orion, Mazzaroth, Arcturus])

Habakkuk 3:15 Thou didst walk through the sea with thine horses, through the heap of great waters. (Context is the Second Coming)

Satan, Leviathan, dwells in this body of water. It is his  “place” in the second heaven (Job 41:4; Isa. 27:1;  Rev. 12:7-9). His “high place” in the “air” (Eph. 2:2, 6:12). 

So how did the Earth become covered in these waters for God to need to separate them before the creation week? 

Genesis 1:

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The present world was “founded upon the floods” of Genesis 1:2. Psalms 24:1-2 “The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” There are several cross references to God flooding the Earth after it was originally created. 

Psalms 104:

[1] Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
[2] Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
[3] Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
[4] Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
[5] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
[6] Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
[7] At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
[8] They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
[9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Psalms 104 is another creation account that provides details on Genesis 1. We see that after God created the angels (vs 4) and laid the foundation of the Earth (vs 5), that He covered it with the deep (vs 6). Verses 6-7 clearly refer to Genesis 1:2-8. Some have suggested that this is the flood of Noah’s day, but the context is creation (vs 1-5). And when the flood of Noah’s day was over, the waters did not flee away and nor is it said that God spoke anything (“rebuke”, “voice of thy thunder”). The waters in Psalms 104 “fled” and “hasted away”. The waters of Noah’s day persisted for months after the flood.

Genesis 8:

[3] And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
[4] And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
[5] And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
[6] And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
[7] And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
[8] Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
[9] But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

After all that time had past, the dove still found no rest and the waters were on the face of the whole earth. Psalms 104 clearly is not referring to Noah's flood. 

Here is another creation passage that clearly says God flooded the original creation. 

Job 38:

1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[2] Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
[8] Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
[9] When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
[10] And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
[11] And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
[12] Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
[13] That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Here we see a chronology of these events

1.) God laid the foundations of the earth [vs. 4-6]

2.) The morning stars and sons of God shouted for joy (sons of God referring to the angels) [vs. 7]

3.) The "proud" waves of the sea broke forth and had to be shut up with doors [vs. 8]

4.) God covered the earth with clouds and darkness [vs. 9] 

5.) God commanded the morning and caused the dayspring to know his place [vs. 12]

6.) The morning/dayspring (creation of light) was created [vs. 12] 

The passage fits hand in glove with Genesis 1:1-5 where we see these same events take place. Notice in Job 38:13 that the reason for the morning/dayspring (creation of light) was for this purpose, "that the wicked might be shaken out of" the earth. Satan had fallen already before the first day of the creation week. Some have accused those of us who believe in the Genesis gap of not being able to associate the flood of Genesis 1:2 with Lucifer's fall. However, this reference to "the wicked" being shaken out is clearly a reference to Satan (Matt. 13:19; Eph. 6:16; 2 Thes. 2:8; 1 Jn. 2:13-14, 3:12, 5:18). Not to mention the famous passage in Ezekiel on Satan being the fallen anointed cherub also mentions being "destroyed in the midst of the seas" and "slain in the midst of the seas" (Ezek. 27:32, 28:8). God said to the king of Tyrus, "I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee" (Ezek. 26:19). 

Ezekiel 26:

[18] Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
[19] For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;
[20] When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

Ezekiel 27:

[32] And in their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and lament over thee, saying, What city is like Tyrus, like the destroyed in the midst of the sea?
[33] When thy wares went forth out of the seas, thou filledst many people; thou didst enrich the kings of the earth with the multitude of thy riches and of thy merchandise.
[34] In the time when thou shalt be broken by the seas in the depths of the waters thy merchandise and all thy company in the midst of thee shall fall.

Some have attempted to argue that the king of Tyrus, "the Assyrian", and Pharaoh in Ezekiel are not prophetically speaking of Satan and his fallen minions, but I have not seen strong evidence for such an argument. Historically these people were not in Eden the garden of God and were not anointed cherubs.The references to their fall to the pit and their association with "the deep", "the multitude of waters", etc. can only be true of Lucifer (Ezek. 31:3-18, 32:2-30). 

Ezekiel 31:

[4] The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
[5] Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
[6] All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.
[7] Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
[8] The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
[9] I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
[10] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his height;

Ezekiel 32:

[2] Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.
[3] Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will therefore spread out my net over thee with a company of many people; and they shall bring thee up in my net.
[4] Then will I leave thee upon the land, I will cast thee forth upon the open field, and will cause all the fowls of the heaven to remain upon thee, and I will fill the beasts of the whole earth with thee.
[5] And I will lay thy flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with thy height.
[6] I will also water with thy blood the land wherein thou swimmest, even to the mountains; and the rivers shall be full of thee.
[7] And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
[8] All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD. 

There is a repeated emphasis on the deep, these waters. Satan is also called Leviathan, swimming in the great deep (Job 41:1; Ps. 74:14, 104:26; Isa. 27:1; Rev. 12:15-16). 

A study of the great deep and Satan will lead you to the truth of the Genesis Gap. It has nothing to do with evolution; none of these Biblical facts accommodates evolution whatsoever. The so called "young earth creationism" movement does not explain the origins of Satan or the many references to the body of water that is above the heavens. They also give faulty interpretation on creation passages such as Job 38, Psalms 104, and Genesis 1:1-2.Meanwhile they accuse those of us who believe in the Genesis Gap of being evolution compromisers and worse. Though this is not an essential doctrine, it is something the Bible has a great deal to say about and it would be neglectful to not study out these references. 

I hope these references will spark your interest into studying these matters out further and to know God's word better.

 

 

“Grace Movement” Religion. Are “pastors” for the Body of Christ?

As I said recently in a post about Jan Wilborn and the term “born again”, some fellow Mid Acts Dispensationalists have been creating religious dogma in the name of “rightly dividing the word of truth”. They are letting their religion interfere with what the Bible says. 

The fellow that made the Facebook post above is a Mid Acts Dispensationalist like myself. He claims to let the Bible say what it means and mean what it says. However, his religion says that if Israel had “pastors” then the church the Body of Christ cannot have them. I would like to see a chapter and verse for this rule of Bible interpretation. Israel breathed oxygen under the law, does that mean we cannot breathe oxygen under grace? Of course not. Terms such as “saved”, “righteous”, “justified”, etc. are used of both groups….along with many others (such as a new birth, Galatians 4:29). There is no Bible rule that if a word is used for Israel then it cannot be used for the Body of Christ also. 

So the fellow above says that “pastor” is a Jewish term only for Israel. I wonder if he would say the same thing about the word “teacher” since it is first used in 1 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. to Jews? How do we know what terms can be used for both Israel and the Body of Christ? Do we need a religious guru to tell us? No. The answer is simple. If the Bible uses a term for both groups, then it is a term that can be used for both groups…

Ephesians 4:

[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Pastors are clearly given as something used to edify the Body of Christ after the resurrection. 

What does the word pastor mean? It comes from a Latin word meaning “to feed” and is connected to shepherding sheep.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: “ A shepherd; one that has the care of flocks and herds.”

Is this a fitting word for the Body of Christ? 

Acts 20:

[28] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
[29] For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Paul likened the believers to a flock and the teachers to overseers feeding them. So how could “pastor” not be a fitting word, unless your religion is blinding you to the word of God? 

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Religious tradition is creeping into the so called “grace movement”. People are creating false rules of interpretation based on tradition (dispensational based tradition is still tradition) rather than what the scripture says. Some people are forgetting that creating a false division in the word of God is just as much a failure to “rightly”divide as not making a division at all. 2 Timothy 2:15 is not just commanding to divide, the division must be “RIGHT”. 

“The Mythological “Gap Theory” by Dr. Peter Ruckman (Bible Believers Bulletin)

“The Mythological “Gap Theory” 

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman:

 In a recent publication called The Gap Theory, by Kent Hovind and Stephen Hawwell, we have a denial of thirty-one verses in Genesis 1 on the basis that the “Institute for Creation Research” (El Cajun, California) believes in correcting the King James Bible anywhere its “constituents” cannot understand it. In this case, Dr. Kent Hovind, who taught Stephen Lawwell how to correct the Bible “with the original Hebrew,” as all Alexandrians have done since 1800 (to the tune of 30,000 changes in the Old Testament). 

The alibi for perverting the first chapter in Genesis (as the Scofield notes did in verses 6 and 16 to make them fit “modern, scientific research”) is that a “gap theory” was invented in the early 1800s to blend the belief in a 6,000-year-old earth with a 2,000,000,000 year old earth, as taught by evolutionists. The teaching, therefore, that Genesis 1:2– 3 refers to a catastrophe that took place AFTER God created the original earth is said to be a “godless theory” (Kent Hovind). The denial of this Biblical truth , in the book we are examining, is something so precious that it is “dedicated to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for His unchanging grace and mercy,” blah, blah, blah.

Typical, pious Fundamentalism in the Laodicean apostasy. Here is what is in this pamphlet ( The Gap Theory —no date or publisher on the pamphlet). 

Page 2: The writer assumes that every Christian who believes in the first chapter of Genesis, AS IT STANDS (see below), thinks that “billions of years passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.” 

They believe nothing of the kind. If you want the time it would be about 2,000 years, making an even 7,000 years between the first creation (2 Pet. 3) and the second creation (Rev. 21), in case Israel had accepted John as Elijah and the Rapture had taken place in Acts 7, ushering in Daniel’s Seventieth Week—which it did NOT. 

You see, at the root of the denial of Genesis 1:2–3 causing a necessary “recreation” is pure ignorance of both Testaments. This is always the case in every case of scholarly, Christian scholarship that messes with the King James Bible; not one exception since 1800. 

Then you are sidetracked for five pages with a “history” of the supposed invention of a “theory” (Chalmers, Hutton, Lyell, Darwin, Scofield, Larkin, Billy Graham, John Hagee, et al.) to prove that if any Christian discovers a Biblical truth that the highly educated Christian scholars have not found, it cannot be a genuine revelation; it has to be a heresy. 

All Alexandrians have done this for 300 years; they continue to do so in regards to more than forty-five revelations which came from the AV Bible, AFTER 1950, that none of them were able to find in any Hebrew or Greek text since those texts were written. (See The Unknown Bible, The Mythological Septuagint, ISRAEL: A Deadly Piece of Dirt, and the Bible Believer’s Commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Acts, Hebrews, The Minor Prophets, and Revelation.) 

All apostate, Laodicean Nicolaitans have one desire: to drag YOU down to their level of ignorance. 

Page 7: Now your time is taken up with the word “replenish” (Heb. “male”) with TWO meanings; one being “to fill AGAIN.” The apostate Fundamentalists tell you that God made an error here and should have used the Hebrew word “shana” if He had intended to “refill” instead of “fill.” Typical Bible correcting by a gnat-straining nothing, as you will see in a moment. 

Page 8: “Gap theorists frequently quote Jeremiah 4:23–24 to prove their point.” Not at PBI, sonny, Not once in thirty-eight years. Anyone can see the “birds” in verse 25 and the Tribulation references (vss. 20, 26), which liken the catastrophe in Genesis 1:2 to the earth in the future. 

You are to reject the King James text in 2 Peter 3 on the grounds that “there are good reasons to believe that Peter is referring to the flood of Noah” in verse 6. No text of 2 Peter 3 implies such a reference; verse 4 states the time of the flood to which Peter refers. 

“And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet. 3:4). 

Now watch how the Lord destroys the minds of Christians like Hovind, Lawwell, and Jim Tedder as they seek to destroy both Testaments (Gen. 1 and 2 Pet. 3). They say that the phrase “willingly are ignorant of” has to refer to a flood about which everyone knew, so it had to be Noah’s flood. Then to cinch

their case, they take the word “heavens” out of the context (see vss. 5, 7, 10, 13) and claim that if “the world” perished in the flood of Noah (Gen. 7:23) that fulfills the requirements of “the heavens and the earth” (2 Pet. 3:7) and “the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). 

Typical Laodicean “Fundamentalist” scholarship by Biblical illiterates who mess with the AV text: absolutely typical. 

To get rid of the THREE heavens and earths that are listed in 2 Peter 3, Hovind and Lawwell grab a verse out of Revelation 21 to refute them. This verse (vs. 1) was simply comparing the new heavens and new earth (AND New Jerusalem— they forgot that one! ) that had just vanished away. There was no Jerusalem, new or old, in Genesis 1:1. 

“The first” in Revelation 21:1 is NOT a doctrinal reference to the history of the earth since Genesis 1:1. Second Peter 3 is a history since Genesis 1:1. 

Now notice that. Notice it carefully. Observe the same “Scriptural ignorance” of Curtis Hutson and John R. Rice when dealing with Acts 10:43 to prove that everyone in the Old Testament under the Law got forgiveness of sins through the name of Jesus Christ; His blood atonement was preached by all of the Old Testament prophets (Acts 10:43). IT WASN’T. 

They didn’t. Not one prophet in the Old Testament talked about salvation “through the name of Jesus Christ.” Not one of them. Acts 10:43 said they did, just like Revelation 21:1 said the

New Heavens and New Earth came right after “the first” ones. Note another example in the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4, which would indicate no others exist. But there are seven of them; they are listed in any version of a King James Bible. The trick is to quote and use Ephesians 4:5 as a “proof text” to prove a lie. That is why Hovind and Lawwell quoted Revelation 21:1. 

Note! All Biblical illiterates can find “proof texts” with which to teach a lie if they lack the spiritual discernment (or the zeal) to “search the scriptures” instead of “history” (pp. 4–7) or Hebrew and Greek words (pp. 7–9). Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in all Laodicean colleges, seminaries, and universities. 

Now, Exodus 20:11 is quoted to prove that nothing existed before Genesis 1:3. No angels, no cherubim, no seraphim, etc. Unfortunately, angels were present in Genesis 1:1, before God made the earth. The apostates forgot Job 38:4, 7 (“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding . . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”) in their anxiety to make a liar out of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:2–3. 

Finally, to undermine your faith in the word of God completely, these apostates tell you that if you believe what Clarence Larkin, E. Bullinger, Cornelius Stam, C. I. Scofield, Gabelein, Frank Norris, Jack Hyles, Oliver Green, Pember, et al., believed about Genesis 1:2 you have “ denied the purpose of the cross.” That would make you a Christ-rejecting infidel. The Mythological “Gap Theory” 

Note: this is the exact position of all Dry Cleaners (“Bereans”) when teaching 1 Corinthians 1. They link verse 14 with verse 17 so that if you teach that a convert of Jesus Christ should follow Him (and Paul!) in water baptism you are denying the efficacy of THE BLOOD ATONEMENT. 

Typical bigoted, ignorant, Biblical illiteracy in the twentieth and twenty-first century. Absolutely uniform from all quarters. 

In their deluded madness Hovind and Sawwell cry out, “If death existed prior to Adam’s sin then would it be the RESULT of sin?” (p. 17). 

Simple, you silly asses (and I say that with “charity” of course! Of course!): who said anything about any man or animal dying before Genesis 3? Straw dummy. It couldn’t have been Satan, for he is alive and well before Genesis 1:2 as a cherub (Ezek. 14), and he is alive and well AFTER the mythological “gap” (Isa. 14), and he is still alive and running the world in the twenty-first century. The angels were “cast down” (2 Pet. 2), not killed, and are in a pit (Jude) of fire. Those angels were drowned in the days of Noah long AFTER Genesis 3. 

What is the matter with Hovind and Sawwell? Nothing that hasn’t been a standard order of procedure for more than 300 years with EVERY Christian scholar who messed with the King James text (any edition of any revision). God messes with his mind. Now! Let me show you why we call these great, good, “godly,” scholarly men “twinkies,” “cloned robots,” “goofballs,” and “programmed jackasses.” Look at Genesis 1. This time read it and dot each

verse. Have you done it? Got thirty-one dots, do you? If not, do it. You do not need a third-grade education to do it: do it. 

Do you see the word “and” at the beginning of verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. to the end of the chapter? You do not need a thirdgrade education to see it. Only a Greek or Hebrew scholar would fail to see it. So let us, for the sake of “argument,” pretend for a moment that we are highly-educated, scientific, godly Christian “researchers” bent on “enlightening” the Body of Christ and saving them from the awful heresy of “the Gap Theory.” Let us “go to the original Hebrew” and see what this word “and” should be! 

Oops! It is “waw consecutive”  (“VAU” in some texts), the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It pops up thirty times in thirty-one verses, beginning with verse 2. Guess what it means! 

It means “AND”! “And” is an addition. Not once in thirty verses does it refer to anything that happened in a verse BEFORE it. Every time “and” occurs in Genesis 1 it is an additional statement of something that takes place AFTER the previous verse. Not one time— not one out of thirty times —does any verse in Genesis 1 describe what took place, in time, BEFORE the “waw consecutive.” What does this mean? It means that verse 2 can no more have any reference, in time, to what took place in verse 1 than it would have a reference to John 3:16 or Romans 8:28. 

There has never been a gap “THEORY.” The “gap” was a Scriptural fact confirmed thirty times in the very chapter in which it appeared. Any second-grade student could see it. apostate Biblical illiterate could fail to see it. We have the “winners,” don’t we, baby?! 

I hate to keep saying “note,” but if you don’t “note” it, these fake “Bible teachers” will keep right on pulling the wool over your eyes till the Rapture: and it is 80 percent cotton at that. Here, an entire chapter in the Bible has been sacrificed to prove a LIE, and any simpleton, without referring to ANY Hebrew word or ANY Greek word (LXX version), should have into such nonsense as “replenish” and “fill” in Hebrew, or “tohu” and “became,” etc., are NOT RELEVANT to any system of interpretation or exposition. 

These are just typical “dodges” and “distractions” to call to your mind that the destructive critic is more highly educated than you are, so you need HIM and his opinions or “researches” to understand a verse with which no one would have any trouble if they read the chapter. 

Verse 24 does not describe how God carried out verse 22. Verse 22 does not describe how God carried out verse 21. Verse 20 takes place BEFORE verse 21; verse 17 takes place BEFORE God decided to let the lights “rule” and “divide light from darkness”; in verse 15 He decided to do this before He did it in verse 16, which took place before he “set them” in verse 17. Is that clear? 

God did not see the quality of His light (vs. 4) before He spoke it into existence (vs. 3). He did not speak it into existence (vs. 3) till “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (vs. 2). Verse 2 is not a description of anything God did in verse 1. Verse 1 precedes verse 2. Get it? The “waw consecutive” shows the chronological order thirty times in thirty-one verses. 

Hovind and Lawwell, being just as confused as Bob Jones III or Arlin Horton trying to explain Hebrews 6 (or Clarence Sexton or Lee Roberson trying to explain Heb. 3), pretended that verse 2 was telling you HOW God carried out the previous verse: not one time in thirty verses, NO. 

Note (!!) that Exodus 20:11 is not a doctrinal statement on the history of creation. If it was, it would be false. There are three heavens after Genesis 1:2. Didn’t you read the New Testament (2 Cor. 12)? DO, they didn’t. 

Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 is explaining WHY a Sabbath rest was given to Israel. It is not a chronological account of creation as given in Genesis 1 by the Holy Spirit via Moses. It is the present heaven and earth about which Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 are talking, exactly as Revelation mentioned the earth that was PRESENT in Revelation 20, before Revelation 20:11. Simon Peter, giving a doctrinal account of the history of the HEAVENS and earth (see 2 Pet. 3), clearly locates and describes three different combinations of “heavens and earth.” 1. The heavens and earth that WERE (vss. 5–6). 2. The heavens and earth that ARE (vs. 7). 3. The heavens and earth that “shall be” (vs. 13). The earth, in the heavens and earth “which are now” were not “standing out of the water and in the water” and it was not “overflowed with water.” It was RAINED out (Gen. 6–8). That isn’t all. The heavens and earth that “WERE” were “from the beginning of the creation.” Genesis 1:1 is the “beginning”— not the six days of creation that follow (vs. 2). The “BEGINNING.” Note: “FROM” the beginning. 

Try the “King’s English” from 1611. It is vastly superior to Hebrew and Greek scholarship of any profession in 2002.

Jan Wilbourn and the definition of “regeneration”

A certain religious fellow by the name of Jan Wilbourn said to me regarding the post I did on the new birth: 

“God Rightly Divide's  how the term " born again " was to be used and God used this term to Israel! God used the term " regeneration " with the church the body of Christ and we go by the way God Rightly Divides!”

“God wrote one term to Israel " born again " and another term " regeneration " to the Church the Body of Christ.”

“The word " regeneration " comes from the Greek word " palingenesia " translated twice " regeneration " nothing about birth????? The greek word " palingenesia " comes from another Greek word "palin "  which is translated " again " (142x). [ nothing about birth ]

Probably from the same as πάλη (G3823) (through the idea of oscillatory repetition) which is the Greek word " palē " which is translated " wrestle (1x). [ nothing about birth ? ] And all of these Greek words come from the root Greek word " ballō " which is translated : cast (86x), put (13x), thrust (5x), cast out (4x), lay (3x), lie (2x), miscellaneous (12x). [ nothing about birth ]

If you have noticed NONE of the translated work from the inspired Greek translators of the KING JAMES use " birth " in connection to this word!”  

And also he added…

“Regeneration " is not " generation? " You cannot see that they are even spelled different? These are two different words! Eli, you have a computer or phone because you are on here? Go to Blue Letter Bible and use the [ tools ] to look up words and how the King James translators translated the words and how they differ. Be honest do you see the difference in the two words above? " Re " and no " Re " in the words above? STUDY! Words that are spelled different are different?”

Now as I said in the post on new birth, there are certain people who try to police the terminology new birth, born after the Spirit, etc. because their religion tells them that it is the same thing as Israel being born again as a nation at the Second Coming (Isa. 66:8). This is a religious tradition and not scripture, for Paul wrote to the Body of Christ that they were “born after the Spirit” and had received the washing of “regeneration” and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Gal. 4:29; Titus 3:5). 

My post acknowledged and shared many scriptures on the distinction between Israel being born again at the Second Coming and the new birth of the believer in the Body of Christ. But just as I said in my post on the new birth, people would try to make this an issue of whether you are rightly dividing the word of truth or not. That is not the issue. Jan Wilbourn wants to make it sound like if you believe the members of the Body of Christ experience a new birth upon salvation then you are not rightly dividing the word of truth. That is because his religious denominational mentality dictates that we not question his assumptions (that Israel is the only one that experiences a new birth) and if anyone does question his religious beliefs then he gets mad, accuses you of not rightly dividing, and says not to use that phrase (“born again”). 

Mr. Wilbourn reminds me of the very religious Jews in Acts chapter 22 that got so offended at Paul’s use of one word. 

Acts 22: 

[21] And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
[22] And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

Religious people hate for you to question their traditions. Bible believers encourage others to search the scriptures and check to see if what they are saying is true (Acts 17:11) and “prove all things” (1 Thes. 5:21). Jan Wilbourn does not like for people to question his religious traditions that make the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13). In fact, though Jan Wilbourn professes to be a King James Bible believer, he said above that “regeneration” does not really refer to a new generating (birth) because his Blue Letter Bible app tells him that the same Greek word can be translated other ways. He would never admit to this, but in essence he thinks it is okay to change Titus 3:5 to a different word because the KJB translators translated it differently in other places. The reason he wants to say “regeneration” does not really mean generating again is because it disagrees with his religious system. He wants to change the word of God to (in the name of the KJB translators, how pious!) fit his theology just like all the Bible perverting Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodist, Campbellites, and JWs. The Grace Movement is supposed to be opposed to religious tradition and denominationalism, but Jan Wilbourn is still very much in bed with them. As for his claim that the root Greek word is not associated with a birth or generation, he points out that it is translated as “cast forth”, “cast”, “thrust”, etc. Is not a baby cast out of the mother’s womb? Thrust out? Born. I believe that the KJB translators use of “regeneration” is accurate and is the word God put in His book. 

Jan Wilbourn and I have been to the same Bible conferences and probably agree with each other on almost everything dispensationally (Mid Acts Dispensationalism). Yet because I said at the end of my post that the Body of Christ does experience a new birth, he deleted me from his online “Rightly Dividing Explained” forum and got very offended (I have the correspondence saved if anyone would like proof). 

But as for the issue at hand. Paul said that we are “born after the Spirit”…

Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Everyone on Earth has been born at least once (obviously)

#1 physical birth 

And per the apostle Paul, believers are “born after the Spirit”. 

#2 spiritual birth

Therefore, despite all of Jan Wilbourn’s Strong’s concordance Blue Letter Bible perverting smokescreen, the Body of Christ does experience a new birth. A second birth. Therefore we are born “again”. The word “again” means “a second time”. So if you have been physically born and then get saved and are “born after the Spirit” then you have been “born again”.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Now as for “regeneration” the scriptures are clear. A “generation” is a birth (Gen. 10:1, 17:12; Matt. 1:1, etc). So a “RE”generation would be a new birth. I am sure Jan Wilbourn would agree that a refill of water is a second cup of water, a rerun is a second airing of a show, a rewrite is a second writing, etc. But because Jan Wilbourn’s religious tradition does not allow him to believe that the Body of Christ experiences a second birth, he has trouble figuring out what “re” and “generation” mean when put together and tries to change the word of God to fit his religion. 

Also, Jan Wilbourn made the statement that “born again” is for Israel and “regeneration” is for the Body of Christ. He seemed to be ignoring Matthew 19. 

Matthew 19:

[28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[29] And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

As I pointed out in the post on being born again, Israel’s regeneration at the Second Coming is different than a member of the Body of Christ being regenerated upon salvation. My point here is not that they are the same, only that the words “regeneration” and “born” are used of both groups (yet to describe different things). 

Like I said in the previous post on being born again, John 3 was not written to the Body of Christ. What I have said is that the Body of Christ is born a second time (spiritually) based on Titus 3:5 and Galatians 4:29. It is okay for both Israel and the Body of Christ to have a spiritual birth. Just like they both have their own rapture/resurrection, destination, salvation, etc. There is no reason to be afraid of the term “born” as if it will make you no longer a dispensationalist “rightly dividing the word of truth”. 

I would challenge Jan Wilbourn to demonstrate from the King James Bible, without changing the words because of the “Greek” he learned from Blue Letter Bible app, that “regeneration” does not mean a new generating. Or can he prove that somehow being “born after the Spirit” is not a new birth or being born “a second time”? Also, can he show what is the danger of both terms being applied to Israel and the Body of Christ? Because the Bible uses “resurrection” for both groups, “saved” for both groups, etc. and it causes no confusion as long as you rightly divide the word of truth.  

The big picture