genesis 1:1 and creation ex nihilo

[Deacon]

This discussion reminded me of a book I haven’t looked at in quite a while.
It’s by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig
Creation out of Nothing, A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Baker, 2004, 280 pages)
A very through review of the subject from a wide variety of perspectives.
Includes critical analysis of Hebrew and Greek grammar relating to the topic.
It may interest you.

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

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

<Sigh> He is saying, as I am, that there is no logical connection (verse two is not subordinate to verse one) nor is there a chronological connection (no gap).

The earth was created. The earth was unformed and unfilled. Its being unformed and unfilled is not the result of some action subsequent to verse 1.

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

No, they don't. Your inability to understand rather simple concepts is the problem.

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.

That is because there is no gap, in spite of your continued falsehood.

 

[Calminian]

This discussion reminded me of a book I haven’t looked at in quite a while.
It’s by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig
Creation out of Nothing, A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Baker, 2004, 280 pages)
A very through review of the subject from a wide variety of perspectives.
Includes critical analysis of Hebrew and Greek grammar relating to the topic.
It may interest you.

Rob

I may, especially now as I've been focusing on this study. I know they don't hold to young earth as I do, but would be good to check out. Thank you.

 

[Calminian]

<Sigh> He is saying, as I am, that there is not logical connection (verse two is not subordinate to verse one) nor is there a chronological connection (no gap).

The earth was created. The earth was unformed and unfilled. Its being unformed and unfilled is not the result of some action subsequent to verse 1.

No, they don't. Your inability to understand rather simple concepts is the problem.

That is because there is no gap, in spite of your continued falsehood.

I'm sorry, you've said what you've said, and I simply responded to what you said. I focused on a statement. If you really agree with Barrick, you misspoke. All I can do is go by your words.

But if you're saying you agree with him, I'll take you at your word.

 

[Aaron]

What does "without form" mean? Do you imagine a planet in space, the surface of which is all ocean? And wouldn't that suggest form?

 

[agedman]

Does it matter?

I am not making light of the topic, but considering the scope of pose and poetry in the Scriptures, is it not better to state with certainty as the Scriptures do:

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.​

Does Genesis 1 give all the details and facts of creation? Of course not!

God left such an abundance undiscovered for humankind to argue over, yet the certainty is that God creates. He did so (Imo) for two reasons: 1) To allow for humans to become so self absorbed as to confirm their foolish minds in darkness, and 2) To allow for believers to be all the more encouraged and certain of the authority and knowledge of the Creator.

He is not haphazard, desperate, nor unskilled, but takes time, takes patience, and demonstrates such intricacy that humankind even in this modern age have yet to reach the full depth of any science, but merely tread on the surface disclosing what we might scratch up.

He did not stop creating but according to Scriptures continues:

1“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. 2“In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3“If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.​

What I haven't found in Scriptures is if God ever stops creating.

My own opinion (which is worthless) is that He does not, but as the glory of the new heavens and earth radiate His glory, the book closes, and some of us long to know more.

 

[Aaron]

What I haven't found in Scriptures is if God ever stops creating.

I have:

Gen 2:1-2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

[stgeorge]

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?

.....In gen 1:1....earth and the heavens would be better translated as " matter and space".....this distinguishes v.1 from the creation of the planet earth later in Gen. Secondly, Adam's posterity could only use the existing words in Hebrew to describe the universe in the vernacular. Thirdly, then the "formless earth" is not the literal earth.....it is what we know today as "matter, the sum total of all the molecules in the universe that existed but yet....without being organized into patterns and designs.

I might add that when God created light, there is the implication that light moved at infinite speed. This would fill the universe with light from one end to the other. But when God separated light from darkness, He then slowed down the speed of light creating tiny lights in the night sky. The point is we have figurative descriptions or best available understandings of events on these six literal days.

Lastly, we can agree that "bara" in Hebrew means to create from nothing like you say. God spoke all matter and space into existence with His Almighty power. But God created the universe at the speed of thought.

Food for thought.

 

[atpollard]

Genesis 1 is also a polemic refuting the creation myths of the surrounding people and empires. All of the details, from a single pre-existing God, to ex nihilo creation, to the reference to water serves to directly refute some critical aspect of all other mythologies. Genesis 1 is God saying to the rest of the ‘gods’ ... “Liar, liar. Pants on fire!”

It is not primarily a ‘scientific’ text. It is first and foremost a theological text conveying important truths about God.

 

[Deacon]

.....In gen 1:1....earth and the heavens would be better translated as " matter and space".....this distinguishes v.1 from the creation of the planet earth later in Gen.

The words used are simple ones, land/earth (eretz) and sky/skies (shamaim). Many commentators have expressed that the phrase is a figure of speech, a merism. A merism uses two opposites to form an expression, heaven and earth = everything that is, the universe - although recognize we only began to know how large the universe is in the last 150 years.

Secondly, Adam's posterity could only use the existing words in Hebrew to describe the universe in the vernacular.

God’s authority was vested in the words communicated through the author. It would be irresponsible to add modern scientific meanings to the authorized original communication. It can’t mean to me what it didn’t mean to the original audience.

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

Many commentators have expressed that the phrase is a figure of speech, a merism.

Exactly! I posted this the last time there was a long thread on this subject (a couple years ago). (See: https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...n-concerning-genesis-1-1.105801/#post-2339715 )

A merism names the two extremes, in this case "the heavens" (the highest extreme - an unimaginable distance) and "the earth" (the closest extreme - right under our feet) and is used as a type of synecdoche where a part of something is used to indicate the whole ("my wheels," referring to my car).

With a merism the extremes are used to indicate the highest and lowest, and everything in between!

In the beginning God created the highest high and the lowest low, and everything in between.

 

[Calminian]

.....In gen 1:1....earth and the heavens would be better translated as " matter and space".....this distinguishes v.1 from the creation of the planet earth later in Gen.

I don't know about translated, but I definitely understand it as matter—the matter that was eventually used to form the earth and sea. I think thats the clear straightforward message of the first three verses. But I think you have to translate 'eretz as earth. And I think heaven is, in its basic meaning, space. "God called the expanse, heaven."

It brings up some interesting things to think about. This space was expanded on day 2, which would imply it was unexpanded on day 1. Perhaps the first verse is conveying that, in the beginning, God created the unformed earth (matter) and the unexpanded heavens (space-a much smaller space than we see today).

Secondly, Adam's posterity could only use the existing words in Hebrew to describe the universe in the vernacular. Thirdly, then the "formless earth" is not the literal earth.....it is what we know today as "matter, the sum total of all the molecules in the universe that existed but yet....without being organized into patterns and designs.

I think there is merit to this, particularly in light of day 2 when God divided this matter, and made the earth and sea from only 1 portion of it. Humphreys' model leans toward this.

I might add that when God created light, there is the implication that light moved at infinite speed. This would fill the universe with light from one end to the other. But when God separated light from darkness, He then slowed down the speed of light creating tiny lights in the night sky. The point is we have figurative descriptions or best available understandings of events on these six literal days.

I think they used the best available words, which seems adequate.

Lastly, we can agree that "bara" in Hebrew means to create from nothing like you say. God spoke all matter and space into existence with His Almighty power. But God created the universe at the speed of thought.

Food for thought.

Thanks, I'll chew on that for a bit.

 

[Calminian]

The words used are simple ones, land/earth (eretz) and sky/skies (shamaim). Many commentators have expressed that the phrase is a figure of speech, a merism. A merism uses two opposites to form an expression, heaven and earth = everything that is, the universe - although recognize we only began to know how large the universe is in the last 150 years.
God’s authority was vested in the words communicated through the author. It would be irresponsible to add modern scientific meanings to the authorized original communication. It can’t mean to me what it didn’t mean to the original audience.

Rob

I think merism is a reasonable inference. The problem is, Sailhamer goes on to speculate that verse 1 speaks of the entire creation of everything, prior to the 6 days of creation. He doesn't see it as a title, referring to the coming 6 days, but rather a narrative of its own describing an undisclosed period of time in which the heavens and the earth and everything in them were finished. He bases this, also, on the idea that re'shiyth (beginning) can refer to a beginning period, not merely a beginning point (which I think also has merit). He then speculates that the 6 days that follow (possibly happening billions of years later) are the creation of the land of Eden, which is really the land of Israel. That's where he jumps off the deep end and gets himself into a world of trouble.

 

[Calminian]

What does "without form" mean? Do you imagine a planet in space, the surface of which is all ocean? And wouldn't that suggest form?

I think it's a good point, and no, I don't think Genesis 1 is ever speaking of a planet, per se, in the sense of a land/sea unit. In fact, all throughout Scripture, earth and sea are distinct.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....​

Earth and sea are always distinct, everywhere in the entire Bible. The writers of both the Old and New Testaments were referring to land when they used the word earth (God called the dry land earth). They divided creation into 3 basic points of reference, land, sea sky.

So, I do think you're right, I don't know that Genesis 1:1-3 is speaking of a planet covered with water. I don't think that existed yet. I think it was merely talking about watery matter that might have been spherical, due to gravity, but was not solid in any sense, and thus formless.

 

[robycop3]

The vaw disjunctive that starts verse two separates verse 1 from the narrative beginning in verse 2. That is a fact. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact. The vaw disjunctive forbids any logical or chronological connection between verse 1 and verse 2.

(Verse 1: Here is what we are going to talk about [title/synopsis])

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

(Verse 2: Here are the circumstances that prevailed at the time.)

2 The earth (והארץ - the vaw disjunctive) was unformed and unfilled. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

(verse 2 is a circumstantial clause setting the conditions that existed at the beginning of the narrative in verse 3.)

(The narrative begins.)

3 Said God (ויאמר אלהים - vaw consecutive) “Let there be light,” and there was light.

The vaw consecutive connects every other verse of Genesis 1 to the beginning of the narrative in verse 2. It is one consecutive narrative.

There is no mention anywhere in Genesis 1 that the heavens and the earth were created from pre-existing matter.

God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence.

But plainly, THE WATERS were already in existence.

 

[atpollard]

But plainly, THE WATERS were already in existence.

Mesopotamian (Babylonian-Akkadian)

Tiamat was a Babylonian sea-dragon, presumably originating from the Sumerian monster Labbu begot and killed by Enlil. The Enuma Elish describes the events in the universe prior to the creation of a new world order by Marduk. Initially there were the mingled waters of Abzu, the abyss of sweet water, Tiamat, the salt-water ocean, and Mammu, the mists hovering over their surfaces. Abzu and Tiamat were the parents of the first gods, Lahmu and Lahamu; their children were Ansar and Kisar, and grandchildren Enu and Ea. All the commotion made by the young deities greatly annoyed Abzu and Tiamat, who upon the advice of Mammu, decided to destroy them. When Ea learned of their plot, he used his magical powers to thwart it, and perhaps even killed Abzu. The final deliverance, however, was achieved through the son of Ea, Marduk.

According to legend before this deliverance occurred a cosmic war evolved. Timat was sadden by Abzu’s death, and greatly angered. The news reached the other gods that she was making fearsome war preparations which at first dismayed them. Along with her second husband Kingu, and an army of dragon and serpent forms, Tiamat, mother of the gods, aimed at universal destruction. Chaos gripped the world. In an attempt to counteract Tiamat’s terrible threat, Anser proposed that Marduk be appointed divine champion and armed with ‘matchless weapons’ for the terrible battle. This was agreed upon as well as Marduk’s insistence that he be acknowledged first among the gods. With bow and trident, club and net, and an amoury of winds he rode his chariot into the fray. When Tiamat opened her jaws to swallow him Marduk launched a mighty wind right into her mouth, so she could not close it, shot an arrow into her stomach and slew her. He took her followers captive, and fastened upon his own breast the tablets of destiny-the wedding gift of Tiamat to Kingu. Then he sliced her carcass in two halves; out of one he made heaven, from the other he formed earth. On the earth, he formed humankind from the blood of Kingu before returning to his temple in Babylon.


In another version of this legend Tiamat is depicted as a primordial, creation sea-goddess being the power of the ocean waters who begets eleven monsters. She becomes enraged by the death of her first husband now called Apsu, the underground sweet water, is killed by Enki who cooperated with the gods under the leadership of Marduk. In this version Tiamat is reported to have created an exact replica of Apsu, the Esarra. The cosmic battle also is waged and Marduk defeats Tiamat. He then splits her in two, one half becomes the vault of heaven; her eyes become the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates with mountains rising over her head.
​

Cotterell, Arthur, A Dictionary of World Mythology, New York, G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1980. pp. 51-52
Jordan, Michael, Encyclopedia of Gods, New York, Facts On File, Inc. 1993, pp. 260-261

Most critics of the Bible focus on the similarities and accuse the Bible of plagarism. However, if one focuses on the differences, one can see that the One True God is utterly refuting the details of the creation mythos (and therefore of the false gods themselves) of the great Mesopotamian Empires.

Others thought that the primordial WATER was a god who gave birth to the other gods and from which the universe was created by these false gods. The TRUE GOD claims to have already existed before the WATER, that the WATER was nothing and that GOD created everything.

Imagine what Genesis 1 would mean to someone living in Mesopotamia!

 

[loDebar]

Relying on more accurate translations, it become evident that the initial creation of the earth an heavens (space) is not mentioned.

Gen 1:1
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
Gen 1:2
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Gen 1:3¶
and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

The first creation mentioned here is light.

We know Satan and others were expelled are reserved into darkness,. There was no darkness in Heaven. A place of darkness had to be created, It is not in Heaven, but here.

From Job 38:7 God speaking to Job ,we know beings were here when light was created by the response mentioned.

So, the creation of the Universe , is not mentioned but we know it had to exist.

What is the creation story the beginning of? The redemption of sinful beings. A place for man, Jesus to be man and one of us.

Heb 2:14
Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil --

 

[Calminian]

But plainly, THE WATERS were already in existence.

If you read the first verse of Genesis as a title, yes. The question is, is it merely a title or is it part of the day 1 narrative? One suggestion is to read the first 5 verses of the Bible without verse breaks. Sarfati made the point that if there were no added verses, gap theories likely would not have developed.

 

[TCassidy]

The question is, is it merely a title or is it part of the day 1 narrative?

When you ask the wrong question you get a wrong answer.

The question is not between verse 1 being merely a title and verse 1 being part of the day 1 narrative.

The question is, does verse 1 act as an expression of intent and is a synopsis of what follows or is it part of the day 1 narrative?

The inclusion of both the vaw disjunctive and the circumstantial clause between verse 1 and the beginning of the day 1 narrative in verse 3 makes that pretty obvious.

 

[Calminian]

When you ask the wrong question you get a wrong answer.

The question is not between verse 1 being merely a title and verse 1 being part of the day 1 narrative....

It's a question many ask. Scholars ask. Sarfati in his commentary asks. And your answer to it has caused many to conclude the waters were preexisting. You may not like that, but it's a fact.