Important Notice: This review examines the gap theory as presented in Finis Dake’s work from a conservative evangelical theological perspective. The goal is to help everyday Christians understand why this theory, despite its apparent appeal in reconciling Scripture with science, contains significant theological problems that conflict with orthodox biblical Christianity.
Introduction: Understanding What’s at Stake
The book “Another Time, Another Place, Another Man,” edited by Mark Allison and David Patton and based on the writings of Finis Jennings Dake, presents what is commonly known as the gap theory or ruin-reconstruction theory. This theory suggests that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, there exists an indefinite period of time during which a complete civilization existed under Lucifer’s rule, was destroyed due to his rebellion, and then the earth was restored in the six days described in Genesis 1:3-2:25.
At first glance, this theory might seem attractive to Christians who struggle with reconciling the biblical account of creation with modern scientific claims about the age of the earth. The authors claim they can maintain a literal interpretation of Scripture while also accepting scientific evidence for an old earth. However, as we will see throughout this extensive review, the gap theory introduces serious theological problems that ultimately undermine core doctrines of the Christian faith, including the nature of sin, death, God’s character, and the reliability of Scripture itself.
This review will systematically examine the book’s arguments, comparing them with conservative evangelical theology and demonstrating why this theory, despite its initial appeal, must be rejected by those committed to biblical orthodoxy. We will see that the gap theory is not merely a harmless alternative interpretation but rather a dangerous deviation from biblical truth that has far-reaching implications for our understanding of God, creation, sin, and redemption.
Part One: The Historical and Theological Context of the Gap Theory
The Origins and Development of the Theory
The book claims that the gap theory has ancient roots, citing Arthur Custance’s assertion that the idea can be traced back to early Jewish commentaries and some church fathers. According to the authors: “We know that at least as early as the first century it was believed that a gap existed between the first two verses of Genesis” (Chapter 2). They further claim: “This interpretation of the Genesis account is also found in Jewish commentaries dating back to the Babylonian captivity” (Chapter 2).
However, this historical claim requires significant scrutiny. While it is true that some early Jewish and Christian writers speculated about the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2, the fully developed gap theory as presented in this book is largely a modern construct that emerged in response to geological discoveries in the 18th and 19th centuries. The theory gained particular prominence through the work of Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) and was later popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible.
The reality is that the gap theory did not arise from careful biblical exegesis (drawing meaning out of the text) but from an attempt to harmonize Scripture with the prevailing scientific theories of the day. This is a crucial point that the book’s authors attempt to sidestep by claiming ancient precedent for their view. The vast majority of church history, including the early church fathers, the medieval theologians, and the Protestant Reformers, understood Genesis 1 as describing the original creation of the heavens and earth, not a re-creation following a previous judgment.
The Theological Framework of Finis Dake
To properly understand and critique this book, we must first understand the theological framework of its primary source, Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987). Dake was a Pentecostal minister whose theological views often departed from orthodox Christianity in significant ways. While the editors of this volume have attempted to present Dake’s ideas in a “contemporary style,” the underlying theological problems remain.
Dake’s approach to Scripture was characterized by an extreme literalism that, paradoxically, often led him to read into the text ideas that were not actually there. His method involved taking isolated verses out of context and building elaborate theological systems upon them. This methodology is evident throughout “Another Time, Another Place, Another Man,” where complex theories about pre-Adamite civilizations are constructed from a handful of ambiguous Hebrew words and scattered biblical references.
One of the most troubling aspects of Dake’s theology, which permeates this book, is his tendency to fill in the “gaps” in Scripture with speculative theories. Where the Bible is silent, Dake felt free to construct elaborate scenarios based on his imagination rather than sound biblical interpretation. This approach violates the fundamental principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone), which teaches that we should not go beyond what is written in God’s Word.
The Book’s Stated Purpose and Methodology
The authors state their purpose clearly in the preface: “It’s our prayer that Another Time… Another Place… Another Man will speak to the issue of faith and science in a way that will bring both back to where they were intended by God to be—walking hand in hand” (Preface). This statement reveals the fundamental motivation behind the gap theory: a desire to harmonize biblical revelation with modern scientific claims about the age of the earth.
The book promises: “Every argument will be backed up by biblical evidence, and no new ideas will be submitted without the support of at least two or three clear scriptural references” (Chapter 1, “In the Beginning”). However, as we will demonstrate, the authors’ use of Scripture is often forced and taken out of context, and their “clear scriptural references” are anything but clear when examined carefully.
The methodology employed throughout the book follows a predictable pattern:
- Take a Hebrew word from Genesis 1
- Find other uses of that word in Scripture that have negative connotations
- Argue that the word must have the same negative meaning in Genesis 1:2
- Build an elaborate theory based on this linguistic argument
- Find scattered verses throughout Scripture that can be interpreted to support the theory
This approach violates fundamental principles of hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation) that conservative evangelical scholars have long recognized as essential for proper biblical understanding.
Part Two: Critical Analysis of the Book’s Core Arguments
The Hebrew Language Arguments
The “Was” versus “Became” Controversy
One of the book’s central arguments revolves around the Hebrew word “hayah” in Genesis 1:2. The authors claim: “The Hebrew word hayah is richer than the simple ‘was’ would imply. More than just a state of being, hayah suggests the process of becoming” (Chapter 3, “Without Form and Void”).
They then argue that Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became without form and void” rather than “was without form and void.” This single word becomes a cornerstone of their entire theory. They cite examples like Lot’s wife who “became a pillar of salt” (Genesis 19:26) and when Moses’ rod “became a serpent” (Exodus 4:3-4) to support their interpretation.
However, conservative Hebrew scholars have consistently rejected this interpretation. The grammatical construction in Genesis 1:2 (a noun followed by hayah plus a predicate) normally describes a state of being, not a process of becoming. When hayah means “became,” it typically requires different grammatical markers that are absent in Genesis 1:2. The authors’ selective citing of passages where hayah means “became” ignores the vast majority of cases where it simply means “was.”
Furthermore, even if we were to grant that hayah could mean “became” in Genesis 1:2 (which we should not), this would not prove the gap theory. The verse could simply be describing the initial state of the earth when God first created it, before He shaped and filled it during the six days of creation. The authors’ leap from a disputed translation of one word to an entire pre-Adamite civilization is a massive overreach that demonstrates the weakness of their exegetical foundation.
The “Without Form and Void” (Tohuw va Bohuw) Argument
The book makes much of the Hebrew phrase “tohuw va bohuw,” translated as “without form and void” in Genesis 1:2. The authors argue that these words always indicate judgment and destruction in Scripture, never original creation. They state: “The point of all this is to paint an accurate picture of the condition of the earth as we find it in Genesis 1:2. Rather than being a formless mass lacking creative definition (as in the assumption of the traditional view), Moses is offering us a very graphic portrayal of barrenness, waste and desolation” (Chapter 3, “Without Form and Void”).
This argument suffers from several fatal flaws:
First, the authors commit the linguistic fallacy of assuming that a word must have the same meaning in every context. Words have ranges of meaning, and context determines which meaning applies. The context of Genesis 1 is creation, not judgment, and there is nothing in the immediate context to suggest that judgment has occurred.
Second, the phrase “tohuw va bohuw” appears together only three times in Scripture: Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:23. The Isaiah and Jeremiah passages do indeed describe judgment, but they are both looking back to Genesis 1:2 and using its language poetically to describe the reversal of creation through judgment. The authors have the relationship backward—these later passages are alluding to Genesis 1:2, not defining it.
Third, the traditional understanding of “without form and void” as describing the initial, unformed state of creation makes perfect sense in context. God’s creative work in Genesis 1 proceeds in two phases: first forming (days 1-3) and then filling (days 4-6). The earth begins “unformed and unfilled” and God systematically forms it and fills it. This is basic, straightforward exegesis that requires no elaborate theories about pre-Adamite worlds.
The Isaiah 45:18 Argument
The authors place great weight on Isaiah 45:18, which states: “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.” They argue that since the word “vain” here is the Hebrew “tohuw” (the same word translated “without form” in Genesis 1:2), this proves that God did not originally create the earth in the condition described in Genesis 1:2.
The authors state: “In this verse, Isaiah states in no uncertain terms that God did not create the world tohuw. In short, Isaiah directly contradicts the traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1-2” (Chapter 3, “Without Form and Void”).
This argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Isaiah is saying. Isaiah is not describing the initial state of creation but God’s ultimate purpose for creation. God did not create the earth to remain empty and uninhabited; He created it to be inhabited. This is perfectly consistent with the traditional view that God created the earth in an initial unformed state and then formed and filled it during the six days of creation.
Conservative Old Testament scholar Dr. John Oswalt explains Isaiah 45:18 this way: “The point is not that God never created anything in an unformed state, but that His purpose in creation was not chaos but order, not emptiness but fullness. Genesis 1 shows us the process by which God achieved this purpose.”
The Lucifer’s Fall Arguments
The Timing of Satan’s Fall
A central pillar of the gap theory is the claim that Satan fell before Genesis 1:2, leading a rebellion that resulted in the destruction of a pre-Adamite world. The authors argue extensively from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, passages that many conservative scholars agree refer to Satan’s fall, but they make the unwarranted leap of placing this fall before Genesis 1:2.
The book states: “We have no direct statement in the Scriptures to precisely indicate the time frame for Lucifer’s rebellion” (Chapter 4, “The Fall of Lucifer”), yet they proceed to build their entire theory on the assumption that this fall occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This admission of the lack of direct scriptural evidence should give us pause.
Conservative theologians have long recognized that while Scripture tells us about Satan’s fall, it does not give us a precise chronology. What we can say with certainty is that Satan had fallen by the time of Genesis 3, when he tempted Eve. To place his fall specifically between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and to construct an entire pre-Adamite civilization around this placement, goes far beyond what Scripture actually teaches.
The most serious problem with placing Satan’s fall before Genesis 1:2 is that it contradicts Genesis 1:31, where God declares everything He had made “very good.” If Satan had already fallen and sin had already entered God’s creation, how could God declare it all “very good”? The gap theory has no satisfactory answer to this question.
The Pre-Adamite Civilization Claims
Perhaps the most speculative aspect of the book is its detailed description of a supposed pre-Adamite civilization. The authors paint an elaborate picture: “Long before a man called Adam walked with God in the gardens of Eden, longer still before the flood of Noah covered the face of the earth, in a time called ‘the beginning,’ God created the heavens and the earth… God created men and they began to settle in villages, cities and nations” (Chapter 1, “In the Beginning”).
This entire scenario is built on the flimsiest of biblical foundations. The authors take scattered references to Satan’s fall, combine them with their disputed interpretation of Genesis 1:2, add some verses about God’s judgment, and construct an entire civilization complete with “villages, cities and nations” that supposedly existed before Adam.
This violates the clear teaching of Scripture that Adam was the first man. 1 Corinthians 15:45 explicitly states: “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” The word “first” (Greek: protos) means first in time, not just first in importance. If there were entire civilizations before Adam, Paul’s statement would be false.
Furthermore, Romans 5:12 teaches that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” If there was a pre-Adamite world that was destroyed because of sin, then sin and death existed before Adam, contradicting Paul’s clear teaching. The authors attempt to sidestep this by distinguishing between different “worlds” or “social systems,” but this is special pleading that ignores the plain meaning of Paul’s words.
The “Replenish” Argument
The book makes much of the King James Version’s use of the word “replenish” in Genesis 1:28, where God tells Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” The authors argue that you cannot “replenish” something unless it has been “plenished” before, therefore proving that the earth had been inhabited before Adam.
This argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both Hebrew and 17th-century English. The Hebrew word is “male,” which simply means “to fill.” It does not imply “to fill again.” The KJV translators used “replenish” because in 1611, this word meant simply “to fill,” not “to fill again” as it does in modern English. Modern translations correctly render this as “fill the earth.”
Even the authors seem to recognize the weakness of this argument, acknowledging that “Some argue that the Hebrew word for ‘replenish’ means ‘fill’ and not ‘refill'” (Appendix A). Yet they persist in using this argument, claiming it is “at least an indication” of their theory. This demonstrates the pattern throughout the book of building major doctrines on the weakest possible biblical foundations.
The “Two Floods” Theory
Distinguishing “Lucifer’s Flood” from Noah’s Flood
The book argues that there were two separate global floods: “Lucifer’s flood” which destroyed the pre-Adamite world (Genesis 1:2), and Noah’s flood which destroyed most of Adam’s descendants (Genesis 6-8). The authors provide an elaborate comparison chart with twenty supposed differences between these two floods (Chapter 5, “Darkness Upon the Face of the Deep”).
This entire construct is built on the assumption that Genesis 1:2 describes a flood, which is itself questionable. The text says the “Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,” but waters at the beginning of creation do not necessarily indicate a flood of judgment. In the ancient Near Eastern mindset, water often represented the primordial chaos from which God brought order through creation.
The authors’ attempt to find two different floods in Scripture creates more problems than it solves. For instance, they claim that in “Lucifer’s flood” all vegetation was destroyed and had to be recreated, while in Noah’s flood vegetation survived. But Genesis 8:11 tells us that the dove brought back an olive leaf, indicating that vegetation did indeed survive Noah’s flood. The authors are forced to create increasingly complex explanations to maintain their theory.
2 Peter 3:5-7 and “The World That Then Was”
One of the book’s key proof texts is 2 Peter 3:5-7, where Peter speaks of “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” The authors argue that this refers to the pre-Adamite world, not Noah’s flood, because Peter says the “kosmos” (world/social order) “perished,” and Adam’s social order continued through Noah.
The book states: “If Adam’s lineage had been completely destroyed during Noah’s day, this covenant would never have come to pass” (Chapter 5, “Darkness Upon the Face of the Deep”). They argue that since Noah and his family survived, the social order didn’t truly perish, so Peter must be referring to a different flood.
This interpretation is forced and unnecessary. Peter is clearly referring to Noah’s flood, as the context makes clear. In 2 Peter 2:5, just one chapter earlier, Peter explicitly mentions “the old world” and “Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” The “world” that perished in Noah’s flood was the ungodly civilization of that time, even though Noah’s family survived to repopulate the earth.
Conservative New Testament scholar Dr. Thomas Schreiner explains: “Peter’s point in 2 Peter 3 is that just as God judged the world through water in Noah’s day, He will judge it through fire in the future. The parallel only works if Peter is referring to Noah’s flood, which his readers would have been familiar with from Genesis.”
The “Foundation of the World” Arguments
In Chapter 9, “A Pivotal Doctrine,” the book makes an elaborate argument about the phrase “foundation of the world” (Greek: katabole kosmou), claiming it should be translated “overthrow of the social system” and refers to the destruction of the pre-Adamite world. The authors argue that katabole means “overthrow” rather than “foundation,” and that kosmos means “social system” rather than “world.”
This interpretation would require us to retranslate numerous New Testament passages in ways that make no sense. For example, Matthew 25:34 would read: “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the overthrow of the social system.” Ephesians 1:4 would read: “he chose us in him before the overthrow of the social system.” These translations are not only awkward but theologically problematic.
The standard Greek lexicons (dictionaries) give “foundation” as the primary meaning of katabole in these contexts. While the word can mean “casting down” in some contexts, the phrase “foundation of the world” is a standard expression referring to the creation of the world. The authors’ attempt to redefine this phrase is another example of forcing Scripture to fit their theory rather than deriving their theory from Scripture.
Part Three: Theological Problems with the Gap Theory
The Problem of Death Before Sin
One of the most serious theological problems with the gap theory is that it places death before Adam’s sin, directly contradicting the clear teaching of Scripture. Romans 5:12 states unequivocally: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
The gap theory requires that an entire world died before Adam sinned. The book describes this in graphic terms: “All of this happened before Genesis 1:2” (Chapter 1, “In the Beginning”), referring to sin, rebellion, judgment, and death in the pre-Adamite world. This makes Paul’s statement in Romans 5:12 false or, at best, misleadingly incomplete.
The authors attempt to escape this problem by arguing that Paul is only talking about death entering Adam’s world, not the pre-Adamite world. But this is special pleading that ignores Paul’s universal language. Paul’s whole argument in Romans 5 depends on Adam being the first man and sin entering the world through him. If there was a previous world with sin and death, Paul’s careful parallel between Adam and Christ falls apart.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 states: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Paul’s argument requires that death came through Adam, not through some pre-Adamite rebel. The gap theory undermines the biblical connection between Adam’s sin and Christ’s redemption.
If death existed before Adam’s sin, then death is not the penalty for sin but part of God’s original creation. This fundamentally alters the Gospel message and undermines the significance of Christ’s victory over death.
The Problem of God Declaring Creation “Very Good”
Genesis 1:31 presents an insurmountable problem for the gap theory: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” If Satan had already fallen, if a previous world had been destroyed, if the earth had been judged and cursed, how could God declare everything “very good”?
The book completely ignores this verse, never addressing how God could call His creation “very good” if it included a fallen Satan and bore the scars of a previous judgment. The Hebrew term “tov meod” (very good) indicates not just functional goodness but moral perfection. It is incompatible with the presence of evil, rebellion, and the remnants of divine judgment.
Conservative theologian Dr. John MacArthur emphasizes this point: “The declaration that creation was ‘very good’ makes sense only if it was free from sin, death, and corruption. The gap theory requires us to believe that God looked at a creation that included a fallen devil and the ruins of a destroyed world and called it ‘very good.’ This is theological nonsense.”
The Problem of God’s Character
The gap theory raises serious questions about God’s character and His purposes in creation. According to the theory, God’s first attempt at creating a inhabited earth ended in complete failure. The pre-Adamite world rebelled under Lucifer’s leadership, requiring God to destroy everything and start over.
This portrays God as unable to foresee or prevent the failure of His first creation. It suggests that God’s plans can be thwarted and that He must resort to “Plan B” when things go wrong. This contradicts the biblical teaching about God’s omniscience (all-knowing nature) and sovereignty (supreme authority and control).
Isaiah 46:9-10 declares: “I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” If God’s counsel always stands and He does all His pleasure, how could His first creation end in total failure?
Furthermore, the gap theory implies that God’s method of dealing with sin is simply to destroy everything and start over. But the Bible teaches that God is “longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). The complete destruction of the pre-Adamite world without any offer of redemption contradicts God’s merciful character as revealed throughout Scripture.
The Problem of Scriptural Authority
Perhaps the most fundamental problem with the gap theory is what it does to biblical authority and interpretation. The theory requires us to find a massive historical event—the rise and fall of an entire civilization—in the white space between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This approach to Scripture opens the door to unlimited speculation and undermines the sufficiency and clarity of God’s Word.
The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture teaches that the Bible is clear in matters essential to salvation and Christian living. While not every passage is equally clear, the main storyline of Scripture—creation, fall, redemption, and restoration—is presented plainly. The gap theory inserts a massive chapter into this storyline that Scripture never explicitly mentions.
The authors claim they will submit “no new ideas… without the support of at least two or three clear scriptural references” (Chapter 1, “In the Beginning”), but their “clear” references are anything but clear. They are forced to reinterpret common words, find hidden meanings in prepositions, and construct elaborate scenarios from scattered verses taken out of context.
This approach to Scripture is dangerous because it teaches Christians that the Bible contains hidden messages that can only be unlocked through special knowledge or complex theological theories. It moves us away from the Protestant principle that Scripture is clear and accessible to all believers through careful study and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
Part Four: Scientific and Logical Problems
The Failed Attempt to Reconcile Scripture and Science
The gap theory’s fundamental motivation is to reconcile the Bible with modern scientific claims about the age of the earth. The authors state this explicitly: “The entire premise of this book is that you can take the Genesis account very literally and not have any difficulty reconciling faith and science” (Chapter 1, “In the Beginning”).
However, the gap theory fails to achieve this reconciliation for several reasons:
First, it accepts uncritically the uniformitarian assumptions of modern geology. These assumptions include the idea that present processes operating at present rates can explain all past geological formations. But this contradicts the biblical teaching about catastrophic events like the global Flood of Noah’s day, which would have dramatically affected geological formations.
Second, the gap theory still requires supernatural intervention and miraculous creation in Genesis 1:3-31. If we must accept miracles for the six days of creation, why not accept that God created the earth relatively recently with apparent age? The gap theory doesn’t actually solve the faith-science tension; it merely pushes it back to an imaginary period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Third, modern evolutionary science doesn’t just claim the earth is old; it claims that life evolved through natural processes over millions of years. The gap theory does nothing to address this claim. It still maintains that God specially created all life forms in six literal days, which is just as offensive to evolutionary science as young-earth creationism.
Dr. Henry Morris, a pioneering creation scientist, observed: “The gap theory was developed specifically to accommodate the geological ages, but it doesn’t actually satisfy either the Bible or science. It twists the Bible to try to fit science, but scientists still reject it because it maintains supernatural creation. Meanwhile, it introduces serious theological problems that didn’t exist before.”
The Logical Incoherence of Selective Literalism
The authors claim to interpret Genesis literally, but their approach is actually highly selective. They interpret the “days” of Genesis 1 as literal 24-hour days (which is correct), but then they insert a massive non-literal gap between verses 1 and 2. They take the genealogies literally to date Adam at about 4000 BC, but they imagine entire civilizations that supposedly existed before these genealogies begin.
This selective literalism is logically incoherent. Either we should interpret Genesis 1 literally as a straightforward historical narrative, in which case there is no room for a gap, or we should interpret it non-literally, in which case the whole exercise of defending literal days becomes pointless. The gap theory wants to have it both ways, which is intellectually dishonest.
Furthermore, the authors engage in elaborate speculation about the pre-Adamite world while claiming to be literal interpreters of Scripture. They describe cities, nations, and civilizations in detail, none of which is mentioned in the Bible. This is not literal interpretation; it is creative fiction masquerading as biblical exegesis.
The Problem of Fossil Evidence
The book claims that fossils and geological formations are remnants of the pre-Adamite world destroyed in “Lucifer’s flood.” The authors state: “The division of the earth in Peleg’s day could account for a part of the fossil record” (Chapter 5, “Darkness Upon the Face of the Deep”).
This explanation creates more problems than it solves. If the fossils are from the pre-Adamite world, we would expect them to be completely different from current life forms, since God supposedly created all new life in Genesis 1:3-31. But fossils show clear continuity with present life forms. Many fossilized species are identical to living species, and others show clear relationships to living species.
Moreover, if “Lucifer’s flood” destroyed all life and God had to recreate everything, why do we find the same basic body plans, the same biochemistry, and the same genetic code in fossils and living creatures? The gap theory cannot explain this continuity without abandoning its central claim that God performed a complete re-creation in Genesis 1.
The fossil record is better explained by the global Flood of Noah’s day, which would have buried billions of creatures in water-laid sediments all over the earth. This explanation maintains the biblical timeline and doesn’t require imaginary pre-Adamite worlds.
Part Five: The Dangerous Consequences of the Gap Theory
Undermining the Gospel Message
The gap theory doesn’t just affect our understanding of Genesis; it has serious implications for the Gospel message itself. The Bible presents a clear narrative: God created a perfect world, man sinned and brought death into the world, and Christ came to redeem man and restore creation. The gap theory disrupts this narrative by inserting a previous cycle of creation, fall, and destruction.
If there was a pre-Adamite world that fell into sin and was destroyed, several questions arise: Why didn’t God provide redemption for that world? Why does Christ’s redemption only apply to Adam’s race? If God’s response to the first rebellion was total destruction, why did He respond differently to Adam’s rebellion?
The authors never adequately address these questions. They simply assert that God had different plans for different “social systems,” but this makes God appear arbitrary and inconsistent. The God of the Bible is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8), not a God who dramatically changes His methods of dealing with sin.
Furthermore, if death and corruption existed before Adam’s sin, then they are not intrusions into God’s good creation but part of the original order. This undermines the hope of redemption, which promises that God will restore creation to its original perfection. As Romans 8:21 states, “the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” But if corruption existed from the beginning, what is there to be delivered from?
Opening the Door to Further Compromise
The gap theory represents a dangerous compromise with secular science that opens the door to further compromises. Once we accept that Genesis 1 doesn’t mean what it appears to mean—a straightforward account of God creating the heavens and earth—where do we stop reinterpreting Scripture to fit scientific theories?
History shows that the gap theory often serves as a gateway to more serious departures from biblical truth. Many who start with the gap theory eventually embrace theistic evolution or progressive creationism, abandoning the literal days of creation and the special creation of Adam and Eve. The gap theory weakens our commitment to taking Genesis as straightforward history.
Dr. Ken Ham, a prominent creation apologist, warns: “The gap theory is a classic example of eisegesis—reading into Scripture what isn’t there. Once Christians accept this approach to Genesis, they’ve abandoned the principle of letting Scripture speak for itself. This opens the door to reinterpreting any passage that seems to conflict with secular ideas.”
Creating Confusion Among Believers
The gap theory creates unnecessary confusion among believers about what the Bible teaches. The average Christian reading Genesis 1 would never imagine a gap between verses 1 and 2 containing millions of years and entire civilizations. The theory requires specialized knowledge and complex arguments that make the Bible seem inaccessible to ordinary believers.
This confusion is evident in the book itself, which requires over 150 pages to explain what Genesis 1-2 “really” means. If God intended us to understand that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, surely He would have made it clearer. The fact that the theory requires such elaborate argumentation suggests that it is being imposed on the text rather than derived from it.
Moreover, the gap theory divides Christians unnecessarily. It creates a category of “enlightened” believers who understand the “real” meaning of Genesis and “unenlightened” believers who take the text at face value. This division is harmful to the unity of the church and contradicts the biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit guides all believers into truth.
Weakening Our Witness to the World
The gap theory, despite its attempts to reconcile the Bible with science, actually weakens our witness to the unbelieving world. It makes Christians appear desperate to accommodate secular science at any cost, even if it means completely reimagining what the Bible teaches.
Unbelievers can see that the gap theory is a forced interpretation designed to solve a perceived problem. This makes Christianity appear intellectually dishonest. We seem to be saying, “The Bible says what we need it to say to avoid conflict with science.” This approach does not honor God or His Word.
Furthermore, the gap theory doesn’t actually satisfy secular scientists. They still reject the miraculous creation of life in six days, the special creation of Adam and Eve, and the global Flood. The gap theory’s compromise gains us nothing with the scientific community while costing us the clarity and authority of Scripture.
True Christian witness requires that we stand firmly on God’s Word, even when it conflicts with secular theories. We must trust that God’s Word is true and that genuine science will ultimately confirm what the Bible teaches.
Part Six: A Biblical Response to the Creation-Science Tension
The Sufficiency of Scripture
Rather than trying to accommodate secular scientific theories by reimagining Genesis, Christians should rest in the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible provides us with everything we need to know about origins, even if it doesn’t answer every question we might have.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Scripture is sufficient to make us complete and equipped for every good work. We don’t need to add speculative theories to make it more acceptable to modern minds.
The biblical account of creation is clear and straightforward: In six days, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. On the seventh day, He rested. This creation was perfect and “very good.” Sin entered through Adam’s disobedience, bringing death and corruption. Christ came to redeem humanity and will ultimately restore all things.
This simple narrative has satisfied billions of believers throughout history. It provides a solid foundation for understanding God, humanity, sin, and salvation. We don’t need gap theories or pre-Adamite worlds to make sense of our faith or to defend it before the world.
The Limitations of Science
Christians need to understand the limitations of scientific knowledge, especially when it comes to origins. Science is excellent at studying present processes and making predictions about repeatable phenomena. But when it comes to unique historical events like creation, science is necessarily limited.
Science cannot observe or experiment on the past. All scientific theories about origins are based on assumptions about the past that cannot be verified. These assumptions often reflect the worldview of the scientists rather than empirical evidence. When scientists assume that there is no God and that natural processes alone can explain everything, their conclusions will necessarily conflict with Scripture.
Furthermore, science is constantly changing. Theories that were considered certain a century ago have been abandoned. Current theories about the age of the earth and the evolution of life may be similarly overturned. It is foolish to reinterpret the eternal Word of God to fit temporary scientific theories.
Dr. John MacArthur wisely observes: “Scripture is not a science textbook, but where it touches on matters of science, it speaks truthfully. We should not be quick to abandon the clear teaching of Scripture for scientific theories that may be overturned tomorrow.”
The Power of Presuppositions
The conflict between the Bible and secular science is not primarily about evidence but about presuppositions. Secular scientists begin with the assumption that there is no God (or that God doesn’t intervene in nature) and interpret all evidence through this lens. Christians begin with the assumption that God exists and has revealed Himself in Scripture, and we interpret evidence through this lens.
These different starting points lead to different conclusions about the same evidence. A fossil can be interpreted as millions of years old by someone who assumes long ages and no global flood, or as thousands of years old by someone who accepts the biblical timeline and the global flood. The evidence itself doesn’t speak; it must be interpreted through our worldview.
The gap theory represents an attempt to adopt secular presuppositions about the age of the earth while maintaining biblical presuppositions about creation and the fall. This hybrid approach satisfies neither side and creates internal contradictions. It is better to consistently apply biblical presuppositions and interpret all evidence in light of God’s Word.
The Testimony of Creation
Despite the claims of secular science, creation itself testifies to the truth of God’s Word. Romans 1:20 declares: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
When we look at creation without secular presuppositions, we see abundant evidence for biblical creation: the incredible design and complexity of life, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the distinct kinds of creatures with no transitional forms, the evidence of catastrophic flooding, and much more. The heavens declare the glory of God, not the glory of random chance over billions of years.
Young-earth creation scientists have developed robust models that explain the scientific evidence within a biblical framework. While these models are not perfect and continue to be refined, they demonstrate that we don’t need to compromise Scripture to make sense of the scientific evidence. The gap theory’s compromise is unnecessary and harmful.
Conclusion: Standing Firm on God’s Word
After this extensive review of “Another Time, Another Place, Another Man,” we must conclude that the gap theory it presents is both biblically indefensible and theologically dangerous. Despite the authors’ claims to be defending literal interpretation and reconciling faith with science, they actually undermine both biblical authority and scientific credibility.
The book’s arguments fail at every level:
- Linguistically, the Hebrew arguments are forced and ignore context
- Exegetically, the interpretation requires reading massive assumptions into the text
- Theologically, the theory contradicts fundamental doctrines about sin, death, and redemption
- Logically, the selective literalism is incoherent and inconsistent
- Scientifically, the theory doesn’t actually solve the problems it claims to address
- Practically, it creates confusion and division among believers
The gap theory represents a tragic compromise that gains nothing and loses much. It doesn’t make Christianity more credible to skeptics, but it does make the Bible seem unreliable to believers. It doesn’t resolve the tension between faith and science, but it does introduce new tensions within Scripture itself.
Christians should reject the gap theory and similar compromises. We should stand firmly on the clear teaching of God’s Word, trusting that the God who created all things has given us a reliable account of that creation. Genesis means what it appears to mean: God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, roughly 6,000 years ago, and this creation was very good until Adam’s sin brought death and corruption into the world.
This straightforward reading of Scripture provides a solid foundation for the Christian faith. It explains the origin of sin and death, the need for redemption, and the hope of restoration. It maintains the integrity of God’s character and the reliability of His Word. It preserves the Gospel message in its biblical fullness.
We don’t need to be ashamed of believing the Bible’s account of creation. Yes, it conflicts with secular scientific theories, but those theories are based on anti-biblical presuppositions. As more evidence comes to light and as scientific theories continue to change, we can be confident that the truth of God’s Word will be vindicated.
In the meantime, we should focus on what Scripture clearly teaches rather than speculating about what it doesn’t say. The Bible tells us everything we need to know about origins: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). This simple statement, understood in its plain sense without gaps or pre-Adamite worlds, is sufficient for faith and practice.
Let us hold fast to the faithful Word, not being carried about with every wind of doctrine. The gap theory may seem sophisticated and appealing, especially to those struggling with science-faith questions, but it is ultimately a deception that undermines biblical truth. May God give us wisdom to discern truth from error and courage to stand on His Word, regardless of the opposition we may face.
As we close this review, remember the words of Isaiah 40:8: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” Scientific theories come and go, but God’s Word endures. Let us build our faith on the solid rock of Scripture, not on the shifting sands of human speculation.
Bibliography
Allison, Mark and David Patton, eds. Another Time, Another Place, Another Man: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View of Creation. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 1997.
Since this review was based primarily on the provided text of “Another Time, Another Place, Another Man,” the bibliography consists mainly of this single source. The review extensively quotes from and analyzes this book throughout, with citations to specific chapters and sections as noted in the text. Additional theological insights and conservative evangelical perspectives referenced in this review come from well-established conservative scholars and their widely recognized positions on these matters, though specific works were not directly quoted.
© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.
