Given that the lying serpent of Genesis 3:1 appears after its two previous chapters without directly conveying how, why, or when the fall of the "serpent" took place before the fall of Adam (in 3:6), it is understood that a historical overlay or insertion of text that could clarify the "how, why, or when," after the 1:1 creation, has been Divinely withheld or distanced from these few opening chapters of the Bible. Theoretically, if God had inspired the authors and compilers of Genesis 1-3 differently, meaning, to include such details, where might such details be overlayed or inserted? Regardless of the answer, any place where the details belong, anywhere between Genesis 1:1 and 3:1, could legitimately be called a gap, a term that is, then, being necessarily misrepresented when it is either implied as or strongly held as being a bad (unscriptural) word. Obviously, then, all cognizant students of the Bible believe in a gap, regardless of whether or not such students believe that they will, on this side of eternity, ever know where such details truly belong before Genesis 3:1. Thus, regarding this topic, the ultimate question is, "Which gap location is the most exegetically sound?" One might also ask, "Does it matter?" The answer is yes. To coin the somewhat confrontational essence of the Gospel truth itself, "Believe it or not," this ultimate-beginning of evil topic, being tethered to the age-of-the-earth discussion, as well as to other misunderstood topics along the Bible's timeline, composes-yes-crucially evangelical subject matter, necessarily making it as relevant and practical as any Bible topic could be. For though there are indeed non-negotiable Scripture truths that worldly-minded individuals reject outright, "the problem" is quite unnecessarily compounded when dramatically untrue matters evoke a potential biblical convert to instead think, Well, if that [such as the unscriptural notion that the universe is approximately 6000 years old] is what 'the Bible teaches, ' then forget the whole bloomin' biblical enchilada! Herein, author Martin Koszegi calls curative attention to traditionally embedded preconceptions about some important particulars related to origins, end-times, and a whole lot in between, that are worthy of sincere revisitation by those who care enough, by those who have more in common with the Issacharian and Berian types of old than with some of Christendom's popular errors that the Church would do well to come into the unity of faith about. The intent of this work, then, so says Martin Koszegi right along with a body of all those like-minded, is that it would be so.
