Featured genesis 1:1 and creation ex nihilo

Many make the argument that if Gen. 1:1 is an introductory topical statement for the 6 days that will follow, then creation ex nihilo is compromised. For the narrative then seems to begin in verse 2 which starts with the formless earth already in existence. Among others, Walton and Sailhamer promote this idea.

Curious how you all work this out. Is Gen. 1:1 a title sentence, and the first part of the narrative?

 

I would agree that there is nothing in Genesis saying the earth was created from preexisting matter. That's Walton's argument. Sailhamer posits that's what you will have to accept if you take Genesis 1:1 as a title statement, which seems to be what you're doing.

Reading the account, it seems to me Genesis 1:1-2 are a narrative of the creation of the heavens and the formless earth or the material of the earth. I see both of these things happening on the first day of creation, which is what I thought you believed. But now you say the narrative doesn't start until verse 3, so confused.

 

Yes, I'm aware of both of their positions. Sailhamer is a gapper, and Walton is a non-concordist. I disagree with both of them. I was just curious how a young earth creationist might deal with their challenges. I'm a young earth, and have some ideas, but curious how others respond.

 

Just for the record I love the fact that the waw disjunctive starts verse 2.

Here's Sarfati's take:

Is v. 1 a summary statment (or heading)?

The universality of this first verse means that it seems to function well as a summary of the Creation Week, or if you like, a heading for what follows. But there are problems with limiting it to those functions.

....'Hebrew grammar affirms that Genesis is historical narrative,' and the verb bara' is just the sort of verb form, qal perfect, that begins Hebrew narratives. If the first verse was meant to be a heading disconnected from the rest of the chapter, with the narrative starting after this verse, then this narrative would lack its usual beginning.​

He then quotes Leupold:

Leupold summarizes the problems:​

Now is this first verse a heading or a title? By no means; for how could the second verse attach itself to a heading by an 'and'? Or is this first verse a summary statement akin to a title, after the Hebrew matter of narrative which likes to present a summary account like a newspaper heading, giving the gist of the entire event? Again, no. For if creation began with light then with the organizing of existing material, the question would crowd persistently to the forefront: but how did this original material come into being? For v. 1 could not be a record of its origin, because it would be counted as a summary account of the things unfolded throughout the rest of the chapter. Verse one is the record of the first part of the work brought into being on the first day; first heavens and earth in a basic form as to their material, then light. The two things constitute what God created on the first day. The Hebrew style of narrative just referred to may or may not be employed on occasion, depending on the author's choice. Here it does not happen to be used.​

This seems to make the most sense to me thus far. I don't think verse 1 is a heading in the sense of a newspaper heading. It informs us about the subject matter that will follow, like a good topical sentence in a paragraph, but it's part of the narrative as well.

 

Yes, and I'm trying to tell you I feel very good about it.

Oh you mean that thread where you asserted the earth could be billions of years old (though unlikely)? And that the genealogy aren't really genealogies? Uh, yeah, I'm pretty happy about how I faired in that debate, even though I got some Hebrew wrong. But, I'm getting the feeling you're not over quite it yet.

Back to the subject matter, it would appear Sarfati and others disagree with you, and share my concern that you are abandoning ex nihilo. They disagree with Sailhamer and Walton's positions, but agree with their premise that if Gen. 1:1 is strictly a title, and if the narrative doesn't begin until verse 2, then the story starts with the preexisting earth. I think reading the text in a straightforward way starts with the creation of the unformed earth, starting in Genesis 1.

 

Which is a denial of ex nihilo. At least a denial that it is included in the Genesis narrative. If that's your position fine.

 

It's an argument put forth by Sailhamer, Walton, and even Sarfati (very well known youth earth creationist) who cites many other scholars that make the same point. None, to my knowledge deny ex hihilo, they merely claim that the material creation did not happen during the 7 days (except for Sarfati who believes v. 1:1 is not merely a title verse, but also the beginning of the narrative). It's not my argument per se, but it does seem to be a valid premise. TC is taking it personal, it's not, never has been. But it is a valid premise, as far as i can tell. If the narrative doesn't start until verse 2 (or 3 as TC claims) then the narrative starts with the unformed earth already in existence. It's a valid premise. I will definitely take Sarfati's understanding over TC's. I pasted his concerns above.

 

Exactly the argument Sailhamer makes. And from there he deducts that creation ex nihilo couldn't have happened durning the 7 day narrative. You apparently agree. Perhaps this is why you believe there is a small chance (as you stated in another thread) the earth could be billions of years old. You truly to believe in a gap.

 

Found this article of yet another who sees a problem with Genesis 1:1 being a title.

Don Stewart :: Should Genesis 1:1 Be Understood as a Title?


A popular theory is that the first verse of Genesis, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth is actually a title to the rest of the first chapter. According to this view, this statement has nothing to do with God's creative work, or with any particular act of creation, but is merely an explanation of what the chapter is all about. The statement identifies what God did during the creation week. Creation actually begins with the second verse of Genesis 1. Though popular, this idea has serious problems.

No Explanation Of Creation

If the first verse of Genesis is a title, then there is no explanation of the creation of the heavens and the earth. The earth is already in existence in verse two since Genesis 1:2 tells us that the earth was formless and void. Obviously it would already have been in existence at that time. The title, therefore, would be misleading because there is no creation of the heavens and the earth explained in the first chapter of Genesis. We would not know who created the earth or when it was created.

Matter Uncreated

A further problem with this idea is the question of the creation of matter. If Genesis 1:1 is understood as a title, then matter is already in existence when God created. This would make the Genesis creation account no different than other stories in the ancient world. They all began with the earth already existing. The traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1 is that God created matter in the beginning-it was not eternal. The idea that God created the world out of nothing would be absent from Genesis 1:1.

Grammar Does Not Allow It

There is also the problem of Hebrew grammar. If Genesis 1:1 were a title, the Hebrew would read differently. Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence. Genesis 1:2 begins with the word and. This ties verse two to verse one making it unlikely that the first verse is simply a title.

Summary

For the following reasons we reject the idea that the first verse of Genesis is merely a title to the creation account.

1.There would be no explanation of the original creation.

2.Matter would have already been in existence when God began to create.

The Hebrew does not read like a title in the first verse.​

I think this is where I fall on this debate thus far. The fact that verse 2 starts with and, shows that verse 1 is not merely a title, that it's part of the narrative. And verse 3 seems to flow from verse 2, connecting them to 4 and 5.

If I'm reading the passage correctly, on day 1, God created the matter of the heavens and the earth, light and the day night cycle, which implies the formless watery earth was a giant sphere. Day 2 he divided this sphere putting the vast cosmos between them, and day three refined the remaining earth particles into the land and sea.

At least that's where I stand now.

 

Also found some very helpful information from Dr. Barrick of the Masters Seminary.

• Verse 2 begins with a waw-disjunctive (the conjunction waw + non-verb) indicating a disjunctive clause. Such a clause has two major functions: contrast and background information (cf. Putnam, Hebrew Bible Insert, §3.2.2). Since contrast does not appear to be the intent of the narrator (e.g., the earth is not purposely being contrasted with the heavens), the obvious choice is background information (normally parenthetical when inserted within a narrative in this fashion). Anaphora is employed here by beginning this sentence just as the last one ended (with ha’arets, “the earth”). That acts as a hinge to focus attention on the primary topic for the rest of the section through 2:3.

Verse 2 isolates the earth in verse 1 as the primary topic for the next passage. (my comment)

• It is best to treat verse 2, therefore, as a parenthesis providing background information regarding the earth, which is the major topic of the section.

Verse 2 should be understood parenthetically. (my comment)

• A noun-clause (omitting a verb) could have been employed for the disjunctive clause of verse 2. However, the narrator (Moses) chose (under the supervision of the Holy Spirit) not to employ it. He chose the verb hayatah (“it was”). Being the qatal (perfect) of a stative verb (indeed, the premier stative verb), the verb focuses on the state of being (a static stative), the existing condition of the earth (cp. Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §113p). Had the narrator employed a yiqtol (imperfect), the force of the verb would have been a state of becoming, transition, change, occurrence (dynamic stative). The meaning is that the earth was being described as it existed as a result of the act of creation in verse 1.

Verse 2, the state of the earth, describes a state that resulted directly from verse 1, the creation of the earth. (my comment)

Very helpful.

I think it's fair to say Dr. Barrick doesn't agree with the blanket statement: "The vaw disjunctive forbids any logical or chronological connection between verse 1 and verse 2......" In fact, it would appear Dr. Barrack sees an abundance of very logical connections between verses 2 and 1, namely that state of the earth in verse 2 is the result of the creation in verse 1.

 

You're backpedaling fast. You said,

Dr. Barrick says there is a connection, that the state of verse 2 is the direct logical result of the action in verse 1.

Your statement and Dr. Barrick's are not compatible. You may agree with him, but your statements contradict him.

Your position seems more in line with Sailhamer's, that there is a gap between the opening statements of Genesis and the narrative. Dr. Barrick does not see a gap at all.