Information passed on concerning Genesis 1:1

[Hermeneut7]

The Septuagint - "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." full sentence, period

RSV - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." a full sentence, period
NRSV - "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth," paused with comma

NEB - "In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth," paused with comma
REB - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." a full sentence, period

YLT - "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth-- the earth hath existed waste and void," (Oddly the YLT appears to agree with the NRSV & NEB.)

The NET Bible "study note" here reads:
"In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)."

The RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB all give the other option "or", so in today's scholarship, this particular verse seems to be a tossup as the proper translation. So, how to decide which is correct?

1. The Septuagint gave the traditional translation and they were Jews who knew Hebrew and made the translation.

2. The NT indicates creation out of nothing: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God’s command, so that the visible came forth from the invisible." (Heb 11:3, REB)

3. A verse in the Apocrypha shows what the Jews thought about this, in mid-second century BC:

"I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being."
(2 Maccabees 7:28 NRSVA)


The Jewish Encyclopedia reads: "CREATION – ...The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo ...doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of ...of creation,"
creation - search - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[HankD]

The Septuagint - "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." full sentence, period

RSV - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." a full sentence, period
NRSV - "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth," paused with comma

NEB - "In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth," paused with comma
REB - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." a full sentence, period

YLT - "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth-- the earth hath existed waste and void," (Oddly the YLT appears to agree with the NRSV & NEB.)

The NET Bible "study note" here reads:
"In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)."

The RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB all give the other option "or", so in today's scholarship, this particular verse seems to be a tossup as the proper translation. So, how to decide which is correct?

1. The Septuagint gave the traditional translation and they were Jews who knew Hebrew and made the translation.

2. The NT indicates creation out of nothing: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God’s command, so that the visible came forth from the invisible." (Heb 11:3, REB)

3. A verse in the Apocrypha shows what the Jews thought about this, in mid-second century BC:

"I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being."
(2 Maccabees 7:28 NRSVA)


The Jewish Encyclopedia reads: "CREATION – ...The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find in (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo ...doctrine of creation from nothing by the will of a supermundane personal God (Ps. xxxiii. 6-9, cii. 26, cxxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of ...of creation,"
creation - search - JewishEncyclopedia.com

This is an ancient problem because of the use of the "Waw (or vav) Consecutive" used in Genesis 1:1 through and including Genesis 2:3.

A Waw Consecutive (sometimes called the Waw Conversive) is the Hebrew letter VAV - affixed to the beginning of a series of conjoined and related statements (Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3).

The Waw Consecutive has the supposed effect of converting the perfect tense verbs AFTER Genesis 1:1 to imperfect or perhaps saying that Genesis 1:1 is a complete and intact statement with Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 further explaining Genesis 1:1.

What I have said and was taught is found in my old Hebrew Grammar - A Practical Grammar For Classical Hebrew, J Weingreen, Oxford University Press, 1959; pages 90 - 94.

With a much more detailed explanation and difficulties - should you have the inclination to look it up.

Try the web as well.

In summary you have to choose which view you prefer.

The one I mentioned above related to the perfect-imperfect tenses appears to go against the traditional - creatio ex nihilo. - Meaning perhaps that stuff was hanging around that God used in creation. (Crude translation).

Have fun.

HankD

 

[percho]

This is an ancient problem because of the use of the "Waw (or vav) Consecutive" used in Genesis 1:1 through and including Genesis 2:3.

A Waw Consecutive (sometimes called the Waw Conversive) is the Hebrew letter VAV - affixed to the beginning of a series of conjoined and related statements (Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3).

The Waw Consecutive has the supposed effect of converting the perfect tense verbs AFTER Genesis 1:1 to imperfect or perhaps saying that Genesis 1:1 is a complete and intact statement with Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 further explaining Genesis 1:1.

What I have said and was taught is found in my old Hebrew Grammar - A Practical Grammar For Classical Hebrew, J Weingreen, Oxford University Press, 1959; pages 90 - 94.

With a much more detailed explanation and difficulties - should you have the inclination to look it up.

Try the web as well.

In summary you have to choose which view you prefer.

The one I mentioned above related to the perfect-imperfect tenses appears to go against the traditional - creatio ex nihilo. - Meaning perhaps that stuff was hanging around that God used in creation. (Crude translation).

Have fun.

HankD

So would that mean verse one is inclusive of the, perfect-imperfect tenses or just what took place after verse one thru to 2:3?

 

[TCassidy]

So would that mean verse one is inclusive of the, perfect-imperfect tenses or just what took place after verse one thru to 2:3?

The first word in verse 2 (waw-eratz) is a waw-disjunctive which creates a break between verse 1 and verse 2. (A waw-disjunctive can be identified when the waw is prefixed to other than a finite verb. In other words a noun, participle, adjective, adverb, etc.)

So, verse 1 is separated from the following verses by the Hebrew grammar indicating there is no logical or chronological connection between verse 1 and verse 2.

 

[HankD]

So would that mean verse one is inclusive of the, perfect-imperfect tenses or just what took place after verse one thru to 2:3?

Genesis 1:1 - A stand alone statement, God created the heavens (pl. in Hebrew) and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 - Genesis 2:3 The process by which He created the heavens and the earth.

There are several theories among both Christian and Rabbinic scholars.

Use the web "waw consecutive".

HankD

 

[HankD]

Here is something of interest. I forget the source but it is interesting in a strange way.

A mikvah is a kind of Jewish baptism in which people are ritually immersed in water.

Some older rabbinical schools of thought believe water is a non created entity and that is what gives the mikvah its cleansing power and it is "living".

Why? Because water, although mentioned in the six day creation (Genesis) , no where says that God created it but did bring forth life (animal) from it.

HankD

 

[percho]

Here is something of interest. I forget the source but it is interesting in a strange way.

A mikvah is a kind of Jewish baptism in which people are ritually immersed in water.

Some older rabbinical schools of thought believe water is a non created entity and that is what gives the mikvah its cleansing power and it is "living".

Why? Because water, although mentioned in the six day creation (Genesis) , no where says that God created it but did bring forth life (animal) from it.

HankD

Would it not be inclusive in verse one or does earth just imply land?

When the word says, God made, does that mean created or does it mean God made something that had been created in verse one to do and or become something for purpose?

In other words does made and created mean the same thing?

 

[TCassidy]

Would it not be inclusive in verse one or does earth just imply land?

"The Heavens and the Earth" is a merism. A merism is the combination of two contrasting words to refer to an entirety.

In other words God created "the Heavens" - the extreme far end of creation from us, and "the Earth" - the near end of creation, right under our feet.

So it is saying He created the nearest part of the universe, the Earth, and the farthest part of the universe, the Heavens, and everything in between.

 

[HankD]

Would it not be inclusive in verse one or does earth just imply land?

When the word says, God made, does that mean created or does it mean God made something that had been created in verse one to do and or become something for purpose?

In other words does made and created mean the same thing?

My view is creatio ex nihilo.He created EVERYTHING out of nothing Genesis 1:1
Verses Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 Giving some detail. Then the scripture goes through the creation of Adam again.
He was created out of the red earth then God breathed into his nostrils and he became a living soul.

There are LOTs of speculative venues, gap theory, geological gap theory, Adamic re-creation theory.

My advice FWIW - don't trouble yourself, take it as it seems.
Myself - young earth until I'm convinced otherwise (It's possible - but NOT evolution of course).

There is a question that my theology professor asked one day as we sat down - "Class" (he liked to call us "Class").

"Since God is eternal, is His dwelling place eternal? If not where did He live in eternity?"

There was no answer, from him (professor) either.

HankD

 

[Van]

I am not sure what the point is for this thread. It appears to provide two views of Genesis 1:1 in order to support (or not) the gap theology - that the rest of Genesis describes the re-creation of the heavens and earth.

Many, I believe most believe Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and what follows (starting with verse 2) describes how God accomplished verse 1.

The NET footnote makes the argument that the earth existed as a shapeless mass in verse two. But those who understand verse 1 to be a summary statement read verse 2 as follows, Now the earth did not exist, neither did light and so God existed in a realm of the unknown.

 

[TCassidy]

But those who understand verse 1 to be a summary statement read verse 2 as follows, Now the earth did not exist, neither did light and so God existed in a realm of the unknown.

Another abysmal failure to understand rather simple concepts such as a circumstantial clause.

 

[Revmitchell]

Another abysmal failure to understand rather simple concepts such as a circumstantial clause.

Abysmal? Really? man that's bad.

 

[TCassidy]

Abysmal? Really? man that's bad.

Yep.

 

[HankD]

Genesis 1:1 - 3:24 A section of the Bible which has been one the most (if not the most) theorizing fields of any within the scriptures.

You can spend a few life times there starting with - why two accounts of creation?

Not that it's so difficult, it's a magnet for some wild and crazy views.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

You can spend a few life times there starting with - why two accounts of creation?

Uh, there aren't.

 

[Van]

Notice once again the advocates of fiction post insults devoid of content. Does anyone actually believe some arcane grammar rule invalids one of the views, something that Dr. Wallace did not discern.

One of the ways false theology is supported is to claim the false view is required by the grammar.

 

[HankD]

Uh, there aren't.

Uh, there are two accounts of the same event.

Two Creations in Genesis
Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?
2 Biblical Stories of Creation

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Uh, there are two accounts of the same event.

Two Creations in Genesis
Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?
2 Biblical Stories of Creation

HankD

One creation. Chapter 1 is the record of events.

Chapter 2 is a synopsis of chapter 1 narrowing the focus to Mankind.

 

[HankD]

One creation. Chapter 1 is the record of events.

Chapter 2 is a synopsis of chapter 1 narrowing the focus to Mankind.

Of course, I should have said

"You can spend a few life times there starting with - why "two accounts" of creation?

As if a contradiction exists.

It's understandable from the neo-orthodox (of course I don't agree) but - without name dropping - not the neo-evangelical as well.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

It's understandable from the neo-orthodox (of course I don't agree) but - without name dropping - not the neo-evangelical as well.

One of the founders of the "New (Neo) Evangelicalism" and the man who coined the term, Harold Ockenga, stated at Fuller Seminary, in a speech he gave in 1947 at the founding of Fuller Seminary:

“We repudiate the ‘Come-outist’ movement which brands all Denominations as apostate. We expect to be positive in our emphasis, except where error so exists that it is necessary for us to point it out in order to declare the truth. The positive emphasis will be on the broad doctrinal basis of a low Calvinism.”

Looking back on this epic speech thirty years later, Ockenga commented:

“Neo-evangelicalism was born ... in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory.

"The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals. The name caught on and spokesmen such as Drs. Harold Lindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, and Gleason Archer supported this viewpoint.

"We had no intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis attracted widespread support and exercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism... different from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism, and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.

Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the reengagement in the theological debate, the recapture of denominational leadership, and the reexamination of theological problems such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, and others." (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).

Unfortunately more Christians don't have a clue what Neo-Evangelicalism really is. Most think it is "anybody who disagrees with me."