What did God create in Genesis 1:1?

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

From what you've written, I think we are in agreement. My point from the beginning is that the text does not say the universe was or wasn't created in six days. The text doesn't give us that information.

Correct. It does not give that. In my opinion Genesis is describing a literal 6 days ex nihilo creation. But this is not discerned from the grammar.

All of your points are valid and possible but together (in my opinion) comprise a theory which is less than likely but not ruled out by any textual factors.

 

[Glory2God]

That's not it. Your private iterpretation of the Hebrew is wrong.

Psalm 148:1 ¶ Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Where do you suppose all the water for Noah's flood came from. Do a word study on "windows of heaven".

 

[Paul33]

The text does reveal that verse one cannot be a summary statement.

The vav consecutive of verse two carries the story along and proves in Hebrew that verse one is not a summary statement. This is elementary Hebrew grammar. The story begins in verse one and is carried along in verse two. That is why the NIV translates verse two as "Now the earth . . ." It is a continuation of the story first started in verse one.

And yet by using "Now" the NIV is also translating the non-sequential tense of the verb "to be." "In Hebrew narrative, or storytelling, whenever a break in continuity needs to be signaled, then a simple (non-sequential) tense is used and some item of the sentence comes before the verb. The subject is the default item to place before the verb" (Randall Buth, Living Biblical Hebrew for Everyone, 47).

This is exactly what is taking place in verse 2. The noun "earth" comes first in the sentence, signaling a break in the narrative.

So both the vav-consecutive and the non-sequential tense used in verse two indicate that verse one is not a summary statement.

The story begins with God creating the universe (heavens and earth), is carried forward with the vav-consecutive, and directs our attention to the now formless and empty earth with the simple (non-sequential) tense of the verb "to be."

[ February 22, 2005, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Paul33]

Charles,

For the sake of precision, you might want to rethink how you phrase your view. You said you believe in a literal 6 days ex nihilo creation. But it is obvious from the text that there are things that God did on day two and three that wre not ex nihilo. Separating water to form the sky, and gathering waters to make land and seas are not ex nihilo acts of God.

And in my opinion, days one and four are also not ex nihilo acts: Letting light reach the earth's surface and revealing and appointing luminaries in the sky by clearing out the clouds.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

The vav consecutive of verse two carries the story along and proves in Hebrew that verse one is not a summary statement.

No!

The word order suggests this is a "disjunctive waw" - but that's it. The 1:1 speaks of God creating and 1:2 describes the earth being created. Shift of focus! A "summary statement" is NOT ruled out!

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

For the sake of precision, you might want to rethink how you phrase your view. You said you believe in a literal 6 days ex nihilo creation. But it is obvious from the text that there are things that God did on day two and three that wre not ex nihilo. Separating water to form the sky, and gathering waters to make land and seas are not ex nihilo acts of God.

No I said I think the passage implies that. I personally think the earth is old and that the point of Genesis 1 is neither the age of the earth nor the play by play of creation. But that is another thread!

 

[Glory2God]

The Title Verse View Explained

This view teaches that Genesis 1:1 is an "introduction" to the account of God’s creation. Genesis 1:1 is merely a caption or general heading for the whole creation account in Genesis.[12] The narrative of God’s creation begins with Genesis 1:2 which is a description of the scene that existed before God’s first creative act took place in Genesis 1:3. Some Bible versions like the The New International Version (1971); The Jerusalem Bible (1966); and The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1961) accept this view. The NIV for example renders Genesis 1:1–3 thus,

Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen.1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Gen.1:3 And God said, . . .

Note that in place of the conjunctive "And" (so KJV in verse 2) is the disjunctive "Now." Genesis 1:1 is thus rendered a title verse, not to be taken as part of the creation narrative. This view is very similar to the Dependent Clause View in that the latter interprets Genesis 1:1 as a temporal clause whereas the former interprets it as a title or sub-section indicator like the one found in Genesis 2:4a.[13] Like the Dependent Clause View, this view also implies that the Book of Genesis does not teach the doctrine of creation ex nihilo since the narrative proper begins not at Genesis 1:1 but 1:2 with the earth already existing.

This view offers four main arguments. The first has to do with the toledoth formula in Genesis. The Hebrew word, toledoth means "generations." Genesis 2:4a is thus translated, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when God created them." Toledoth occurs at the beginning rather than at the end of the sections. Other occurrences of toledoth in Genesis are: 5:1 (of Adam), 6:9 (of Noah), 10:1 (of Shem, Ham and Japheth), 11:10 (of Shem); 11:27 (of Terah), 25:12 (of Ishmael), 25:19 (of Isaac), 36:1 (of Esau), and 37:2 (of Jacob). In all of these 10 occurrences, the word toledoth is used to introduce the section as a title or caption. In view of this, it is suggested that Genesis 1:1 has to be a title verse introducing Genesis 1:2–31 as the creation narrative.

The second argument concerns the Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANET). From the ANET, there appears to be a pattern in the writing of cosmogony in ancient times. Take for example the Enuma Elish which is a Babylonian account of creation:[14]

1. Circumstantial clause describing the negative state before creation: "When on high the heaven had not been named . . ." (Enuma Elish I:18).

2. Main Clause: "Then it was that the gods were formed . . ." (Enuma Elish I:9).

The book of Genesis is observed to resemble this literary pattern of emphasising a toledoth formula in Ancient Near Eastern writings.

The third argument has to do with syntax. The waw (translated as "and," "but," "now," "even," or "also") occurs as the first word of Genesis 1:2 accompanied by a noun and a verb. This argues for a disjunctive waw rather than a consecutive one.[15] It is argued that the disjunctive waw functions to dislocate the present narrative from the previous one.

The fourth argument involves the understanding of the primitive readers. It is argued that the people in those days were not concerned about whether God created ex nihilo or not. It is claimed that the ancient people were not interested in the question of the origin of matter, but of the process of creation. Creation ex nihilo was not in Moses’ mind when He wrote Genesis 1:1, and thus cannot be the meaning or intent of Genesis 1:1.

The Title Verse View Critiqued

Although this view accepts Genesis 1:1 as an independent clause, it is erroneous in teaching that Genesis 1:1 is only a title, and so has nothing to do with creation ex nihilo.

The first argument examined: The 10 toledoth formulae found in the book of Genesis does not prove that Genesis 1:1 is a toledoth formula. The word toledoth does not appear in Genesis 1:1. If God had wanted us to understand Genesis 1:1 as a toledoth formula then he would have used the word toledoth. He did so 10 times in Genesis, so why not in Genesis 1:1?

The second argument examined: The Enuma Elish is very unlike the Genesis account of creation. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo could not have originated from sinful man. It can only come from the almighty God who actually created the world without any preexisting material. Waltke astutely observed that there is no exact similarity in structure between the Enuma Elish and the Genesis account. Whereas the Babylonian myths use "enuma" and the Sumerian myths at times start with "udda" to introduce the dependent clause, the corresponding point is only with Genesis 2:4b (where the toledoth formula is used), not Genesis 1:1. Quoting Waltke,

None of them begins with the equivalent of the "bereshit" ("in the beginning") of Genesis 1:1. In fact, Genesis 1:1 has no parallel in the ancient Near Eastern mythologies. Gunkel recognized long ago that "the cosmogonies of other people contain no word which would come close to the first word of the Bible."[16]

The third argument examined: This argument seems to carry the most weight, but on closer examination we find that the syntax does not actually favour the Title Verse View. Waltke and O’Connor say that the disjunctive waw involves two common types of disjunction. The first describes a continuity of scene and participants, but a change of action, while the other is used where the scene or participants shift.[17] With this in mind, we see that the first type of disjunction fits very nicely with the view that God created the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1 and then focused His attention on the earth which was without form and void. From verse two onwards, God starts to shape and to fill the "without form and void" earth. There is a continuity between the first two verses of Genesis (ie from heaven and earth to earth only), emphasising that God alone is Creator.

The fourth argument examined: This argument is very subjective. It is impossible to know with any degree of certainty the mindset of the people who lived nearly 3,500 years ago. To state categorically that they did not care about who created the world and how it was created is to be extremely speculative.

God was the Author of the Genesis account, Moses merely His amanuensis. God is the only One who knew what happened, and He knows what will happen. It is thus reasonable to argue that the all-knowing foresight of God required Him to state in no uncertain terms in Genesis 1:1 that He created ex nihilo. This in anticipation of the godless theory of evolution, and to refute all God-denying attacks against supernatural creation. God taught the doctrine of creation ex nihilo through Moses in the very first verse of Genesis. From day one, God created the universe out of nothing. The Lord confirms this in Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Quek Suan Yew

Was this trip really necessary????

 

[Paul33]

Glory2God,

The point of the Psalm is that we are to Praise the Lord, and all created things are to praise the Lord.

NIV

Praise the LORD. Praise the LORD from the heavens, praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created. Etc.

Every created thing is to praise the LORD.

Interesting point, though. The stars of light are to praise him. Where did the light come from that gave the earth its first day?

Is it not reasonable to believe that the light that gives us "day" today is the same light that God called good on day one? We look out the window on a cloudy day. We do not see the sun behind the clouds, but we do see the light. I believe it is this same light filtering through the clouds that God called "day" in verse three of Genesis one. If that is true, God created the sun, moon, and stars of light in Gen. 1:1.

 

[Paul33]

Charles, now I'm confused.

My last post to you was not about the age of the universe. It was about your statement that you believe God created in six literal days the universe. But you stated it in a way that implies that you believe every day was an act of ex nihilo creation.

I was pointing out that every day was not an act of ex nihilo creation. Day two and three are undisputably days of working with existing matter.

 

[Paul33]

Charles,

Gen. 1:2 does not describe the creation of the earth. It describes the condition of the earth that was created in verse one. That's why there is a shift of focus. The story is continous in that it is carried along, but the simple tense breaks the action to shift the focus to the condition of the earth.

 

[Paul33]

Glory2God,

I'm glad I read your whole post. I was about to make a fool of myself by blasting off.

When did you write all of that? You must have been saving that one up!

 

[El_Guero]

Waltke, Bruce K. Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan. 2001.

Would you like the other 3 or 4 top commentaries ...

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

My problem is (again) your assertion that the waw disjunctive rules out a "summary statement". It is a shift in focus - nothing more and nothing less. It neither rules in nor rules out a summary statement.

And I think Waltke (since El Guero mentioned his commentary) actually sees 1:1 as a summary statement.

 

[Paul33]

If it is a summary statement, then there is nothing to be disjunctive about. Verse two would begin without a vav.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

If it is a summary statement, then there is nothing to be disjunctive about. Verse two would begin without a vav.

See this why I said you read stuff into the text!

You're right about this being waw disjunctive, signalling a change in focus or setting. But you cannot say that this rules out a summary statement! If 1:1 and 1:2 were simple steps in a narrative then waw disjunctive would not be used but if 1:1 were a summary statement with a little change in focus for 1:1 then a dusjunctive could definitely be used.

 

[Paul33]

You've got it backwards and are in disagreement with Leupold, Keil-Delitzsch, Gensenius, and Buth.

Context alone, however, would dictate that verse one is not a summary statement. You are just being stubborn.

No unbiased reader would ever think of Genesis 1:1 being a summary statement unless they were trying to prove that the earth always existed, and in this case, in a formless, liquid/gaseous state.

Absolutely foolish, and you know it.

This is a straight-forward narrative account. Verse one is one of the most awesome, magnificent verses in Scripture.

It's simplicity, directness, and content is remarkable.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was barren and empty. etc.

Context is the most important element in discovering the meaning of the text. If verse one is a summary statement, the rest of Genesis 1 makes no sense!

God created the universe in the beginning (summary statement). PUT IT IN BOLD LETTERS.

OK? Now teach us Moses.

And the first item of information (which starts the narrative under the summary theory)in verse two is?

A pre-existent formless earth!


WHAT UTTER NONSENSE!

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

That's all fine. And I do disagree with Buth et al.

You are entitled to your educated opinion - and I mine.

But you cannot assert that the disjunctive waw dictates that the first verse is not a summary. That is reading into the grammar something which is not there.

The use of waw disjunctive as well as scriptural context may lead you to surmise that it is not a summary statement. But the TEXT DOES NOT PROVE IT!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Genesis One having stated that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" definately, even if viewed as a summary statement, declares that God CREATED the earth. The next phrase, then, describing the earth as "formless", is necessarily an AFTER CREATION statement, because in order to exist, it must first be created.

But the creation of earth MUST be in the context of the first day, there is no other TIME for the formless earth to have been CREATED.

Light, you see, had not been created, and a day is the dark time followed by the light time.

Now all that is simply discussion of the literal text.

In modern cosmology, the origin of the universe is sometimes pictured as a great "inflation" of a four-dimensional hypersphere that is generated in an unknown way from an unknown origin. Could the quantum foam of undifferentiated space/time be equated with the "waters" of our narrative? Not literally of course, but in a poetic sense?

Could the expansion of the hypersphere be equated with the erection of the firmament? Not literally, of course, but in a poetic sense?

Could the decoupling of photons from matter that fixed the current appearance of the background radiation be equated with the command "let there be light?" Not literally, of course, but in a poetic sense?

Would a vision of these things, processed into a pre-scientific mind, come out somewhat like our current narrative?

Now I've REALLY gone into speculation. Nobody can answer that.

 

[Paul33]

But the art and practice of narrative literature does, as does the grammar (which we shall disagree).

 

[Paul33]

Paul of Eugene,

"Day" as a 24 hour time period is only relevant to earth.

God creates a universe, including the earth's foundation. The earth is in darkness not because light does not exist, but because it is wrapped in thick clouds and water (Job 38:9, Gen. 1:2).

When does earth (from the vantage point of the earth's surface) experience its first 24 hour day? When light reaches the surface, resulting in God calling the light that reached the earth's surface "day," and the darkness "night."

Therefore, an indefinite period of time could exist before God fashions the first day for the earth.