"In the beginning...."

[Sinai]

Genesis 1: 1-5:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good;
and God separated the light from the darkness.
5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning--day one.

The first verse is an especially profound statement, since it begins by asserting:
A. There was a beginning (of time, of all matter and of the physical universe);
B. But even at that beginning point God [Hebrew elohim] already existed;
C. God created out of nothing [Hebrew bara]
D. "the heavens and the earth" (English translation). It should be noted that although this is a correct translation, it is equally correct to translate the phrase as "the universe", since "heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word "universe."

The second verse tells us that the earth was formless, void and empty--but you are likely to get different interpretations as to what that means. It could mean that the earth was created but was without any form or substance, and was devoid of the necessary building blocks to support life. But it could just as easily mean that the earth was not created in the beginning, but that it was formed some time after the initial act that created the universe.

The second verse also says that darkness was over the surface of the deep; We are later told in verses 3 and 4 that the major development occurring on yom one (other than the initial creative act) was that light separated from the darkness. And the verse tells of the weruach elohim (Spirit of God or Wind of God) hovering over the surface of hammayim, which is most commonly translated as the waters, but can also mean the chaotic mixture or blend. It might be noted that approximately 800 years ago--well before modern scientific discoveries--noted Jewish Hebrew scholar Maimonides said this phrase may mean the building blocks of the universe--that chaotic mixture from which all the stars were formed.

The fifth verse concludes with the statement that "there was evening and there was morning--day one." A similar statement concludes each of the six days of creation: (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

Although the scriptures can be used to support either the YEC viewpoint that the universe is only a few thousand years old or the OEC viewpoint that the universe is billions of Earth years old, the Bible is emphatic that it was the one true eternal God who created the universe and that this same all-powerful and eternal God cares enough about us to provide for our redemption so that we may have everlasting fellowship with Him.

[reyvin]

Genesis 1: 1-5:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good;
and God separated the light from the darkness.
5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning--day one.

The first verse is an especially profound statement, since it begins by asserting:
A. There was a beginning (of time, of all matter and of the physical universe);
B. But even at that beginning point God [Hebrew elohim] already existed;
C. God created out of nothing [Hebrew bara]
D. "the heavens and the earth" (English translation). It should be noted that although this is a correct translation, it is equally correct to translate the phrase as "the universe", since "heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word "universe."

The second verse tells us that the earth was formless, void and empty--but you are likely to get different interpretations as to what that means. It could mean that the earth was created but was without any form or substance, and was devoid of the necessary building blocks to support life. But it could just as easily mean that the earth was not created in the beginning, but that it was formed some time after the initial act that created the universe.

The second verse also says that darkness was over the surface of the deep; We are later told in verses 3 and 4 that the major development occurring on yom one (other than the initial creative act) was that light separated from the darkness. And the verse tells of the weruach elohim (Spirit of God or Wind of God) hovering over the surface of hammayim, which is most commonly translated as the waters, but can also mean the chaotic mixture or blend. It might be noted that approximately 800 years ago--well before modern scientific discoveries--noted Jewish Hebrew scholar Maimonides said this phrase may mean the building blocks of the universe--that chaotic mixture from which all the stars were formed.

The fifth verse concludes with the statement that "there was evening and there was morning--day one." A similar statement concludes each of the six days of creation: (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

Although the scriptures can be used to support either the YEC viewpoint that the universe is only a few thousand years old or the OEC viewpoint that the universe is billions of Earth years old, the Bible is emphatic that it was the one true eternal God who created the universe and that this same all-powerful and eternal God cares enough about us to provide for our redemption so that we may have everlasting fellowship with Him.

Well put, Sinai.

I've been thinking over the initial verses (yet again) recently myself. Especially v 1:1. There seem to be two camps (perhaps three). Either its a title or an actual act. Doesn't seem that anyone's stance dictates this either. I've seen both opinions from YEC, OEC, FI and pre-modern as well as modern times.
I flipped through an OT scholars' text on hebrew grammar and he asserted that yes it was a title but then when commenting on 1:2 asserted that it was the result of 1:1! Left me scratching my head, as you can imagine. He seemed to be asserting both at the same time.
For the YEC perspective I was looking through Henry Morris' newer book the Wisdom of Solomon, and he asserted it was an actual act, but then asserted that the 'heavens' were nothing more than empty space at the time (thus denying/ignoring the merism) of creation. Also against Morris is the fact that 1:1 uses the Qal perfect. This would indicate a completed moment.

[kofh2u]

Genesis 1: 1-5:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good;
and God separated the light from the darkness.
5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning--day one.

The first verse is an especially profound statement, since it begins by asserting:
A. There was a beginning (of time, of all matter and of the physical universe);
B. But even at that beginning point God [Hebrew elohim] already existed;
C. God created out of nothing [Hebrew bara]
D. "the heavens and the earth" (English translation). It should be noted that although this is a correct translation, it is equally correct to translate the phrase as "the universe", since "heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word "universe."

The second verse tells us that the earth was formless, void and empty--but you are likely to get different interpretations as to what that means. It could mean that the earth was created but was without any form or substance, and was devoid of the necessary building blocks to support life. But it could just as easily mean that the earth was not created in the beginning, but that it was formed some time after the initial act that created the universe.

The second verse also says that darkness was over the surface of the deep; We are later told in verses 3 and 4 that the major development occurring on yom one (other than the initial creative act) was that light separated from the darkness. And the verse tells of the weruach elohim (Spirit of God or Wind of God) hovering over the surface of hammayim, which is most commonly translated as the waters, but can also mean the chaotic mixture or blend. It might be noted that approximately 800 years ago--well before modern scientific discoveries--noted Jewish Hebrew scholar Maimonides said this phrase may mean the building blocks of the universe--that chaotic mixture from which all the stars were formed.

The fifth verse concludes with the statement that "there was evening and there was morning--day one." A similar statement concludes each of the six days of creation: (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

Although the scriptures can be used to support either the YEC viewpoint that the universe is only a few thousand years old or the OEC viewpoint that the universe is billions of Earth years old, the Bible is emphatic that it was the one true eternal God who created the universe and that this same all-powerful and eternal God cares enough about us to provide for our redemption so that we may have everlasting fellowship with Him.

The analogous interpretation follows the secular recognition og geological time and also supports a pre-existant "God" in secular terms, as the Absolute Total Energy whict in accord with Einstein's equation, transforms itself into the material Universe. Essential, energy, the power to make things move, becomes synomous with Elohim.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters

Then, the seven yoms are interpreted accordingly:

Gen. 1:3 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen. 1:4 And God (The Universal Force) saw the light, that it was good: and God (The Universal Force) divided the light from the darkness.

Gen. 1:5 And God (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first yom (of the Azoic Era). (1)

Gen. 1:6 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen. 1:7 And God ( The Universal Force) made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen. 1:8 And God (The Universal Force) called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second yom of (the Archeozoic Era). (2)


So on...

[apple]

The analogous interpretation follows the secular recognition og geological time and also supports a pre-existant "God" in secular terms, as the Absolute Total Energy whict in accord with Einstein's equation, transforms itself into the material Universe. Essential, energy, the power to make things move, becomes synomous with Elohim.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters

Then, the seven yoms are interpreted accordingly:

Gen. 1:3 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen. 1:4 And God (The Universal Force) saw the light, that it was good: and God (The Universal Force) divided the light from the darkness.

Gen. 1:5 And God (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first yom (of the Azoic Era). (1)

Gen. 1:6 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen. 1:7 And God ( The Universal Force) made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen. 1:8 And God (The Universal Force) called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second yom of (the Archeozoic Era). (2)


So on...

Genesis:
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So, on the first day God separated light and dark and called them day and night.

On the third day He created plants.

On the fourth day He created a great light to give light upon the earth.

What was the light they talk about on the first day? It didn't light up the earth as God had to make another light on the fourth day to light the earth.

I hope for the plant's sake the third day wasn't too long as plants don't do so well in the dark. :-(

[reyvin]

The analogous interpretation follows the secular recognition og geological time and also supports a pre-existant "God" in secular terms, as the Absolute Total Energy whict in accord with Einstein's equation, transforms itself into the material Universe. Essential, energy, the power to make things move, becomes synomous with Elohim.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters

Then, the seven yoms are interpreted accordingly:



Ok but my only problem with this (and this doesn't jab at any particular view whether YEC, OEC, TE or FI) idea is putting vss 1-2 outside of the seven days. This would mean at bare minimum that the deep existed (and therefore the earth) PRIOR to what some interpreters consider the first day (v3-5). That's never sat well with me.
I think vss 1 and 2 have to be part of day one.

[Sinai]

Ok but my only problem with this (and this doesn't jab at any particular view whether YEC, OEC, TE or FI) idea is putting vss 1-2 outside of the seven days. This would mean at bare minimum that the deep existed (and therefore the earth) PRIOR to what some interpreters consider the first day (v3-5). That's never sat well with me.
I think vss 1 and 2 have to be part of day one.You will find theologians divided regarding whether the first two verses are an overview of creation or whether they should be considered part of the first yom. Since one can probably make a plausible argument for our planet being formed on any of the first three yoms, it can be argued that it was formed either before or after "the deep" (which term is also open to various interpretations and conjectures).

[kofh2u]

Ok but my only problem with this (and this doesn't jab at any particular view whether YEC, OEC, TE or FI) idea is putting vss 1-2 outside of the seven days. This would mean at bare minimum that the deep existed (and therefore the earth) PRIOR to what some interpreters consider the first day (v3-5). That's never sat well with me.
I think vss 1 and 2 have to be part of day one.


Well, to be honest, I really didn't think about the point you raise in this regard. I se what you mean. At first glance, here and now, it seems debatable from different points of view, and equally weighted at that.

I must admit that I had just thought of the whole process up to and including the "let there be light" as all part of thr first day. But I am not sure now.

[reyvin]

You will find theologians divided regarding whether the first two verses are an overview of creation or whether they should be considered part of the first yom. Since one can probably make a plausible argument for our planet being formed on any of the first three yoms, it can be argued that it was formed either before or after "the deep" (which term is also open to various interpretations and conjectures).

Well like I said, if there are items described before God's command 'let there be light', and we affirm ex nihilo then it must have been Him who did it. If v2 is a result of v1 (for there is no other verse that could act on 2), then it must be included as part of day 1.

First He brings everything into existence, then goes to work on it.

Found a critic (paul seely, a christian whom JP Holding butted heads with a couple times on related issues) who tries to deny Biblical inerrancy in saying that its wrong. In one part of his paper, he makes the claim that the Bible asserts the earth was first covered with water (referring to Gen 1:2) but then ignores other creation statements in the Bible. Psalm 104 says that God first laid the foundation of the earth and THEN covered it with the deep. Slap on the wrist to Seely.

[kofh2u]

Well like I said, if there are items described before God's command 'let there be light', and we affirm ex nihilo then it must have been Him who did it. If v2 is a result of v1 (for there is no other verse that could act on 2), then it must be included as part of day 1.

First He brings everything into existence, then goes to work on it.

Found a critic (paul seely, a christian whom JP Holding butted heads with a couple times on related issues) who tries to deny Biblical inerrancy in saying that its wrong. In one part of his paper, he makes the claim that the Bible asserts the earth was first covered with water (referring to Gen 1:2) but then ignores other creation statements in the Bible. Psalm 104 says that God first laid the foundation of the earth and THEN covered it with the deep. Slap on the wrist to Seely.

I find it amazing that the Genesis analogy, written so long ago, closely parallels what we think we understand today. The basic unfolding of the Universe as best we can ascertain went through seven Eras of change and development following the beginning of all with a Big Bang.

In the few short verses of Genesis 1, we get the basic picture. To me, for a writing obviously designed for an audience not scientifically prepared nor particularly interested in so being, this Hebrew epic is short, concise, reasonable accurate, and unique in all ancient writings by virtue of its rational credibility.

In that some Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover is designated by the Hebrew word Elohim, "Creator," we must religate these Bible writings to both the discipline of Philosophy, while respecting that the faith of so many who believe in what is said, places the scripture also in the discipline of Religion.

It seems only fair, then, to avoid criss crossing over, judging the religion by the philosopy and visa versa. I mean, those who might anticipate the religious outcomes which we know follow, ought restrain criticism of the science during theological intercourse.

It is not a science book, and as a philosophy, scripture takes no more liberty or less than the necessary First Cause axioms in cosmologies of the other dozen or so philosophies.

However, it is informative to follow the general analogy of the science fact and world view we hold today. From that point of view the faith held nake by the religious is clothed and illuminated by ratiinal ideas, even empirical concepts.

With that said, I find it more interesting to focus on the "spirit of God" which "moves across the face" rather than upon "the deep." What else might this spirit of God be, a God that controls and forms, and is the Unmoved Mover?

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was (gaseous), without form, and void (in its inorganic matter); and (clouded) darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God, (the Natural Laws), moved upon the face of the waters.

[Sinai]

Found a critic (paul seely, a christian whom JP Holding butted heads with a couple times on related issues) who tries to deny Biblical inerrancy in saying that its wrong. In one part of his paper, he makes the claim that the Bible asserts the earth was first covered with water (referring to Gen 1:2) but then ignores other creation statements in the Bible. Psalm 104 says that God first laid the foundation of the earth and THEN covered it with the deep. Slap on the wrist to Seely.As I mentioned in my OP, Genesis 1:2 tells of the weruach elohim (Spirit of God or Wind of God) hovering over the surface of hammayim, which is most commonly translated as the waters, but can also mean the chaotic mixture or blend. It might be noted that approximately 800 years ago--well before modern scientific discoveries--noted Jewish Hebrew scholar Maimonides said this phrase may mean the building blocks of the universe--that chaotic mixture from which all the stars were formed.

[kofh2u]

Well like I said, if there are items described before God's command 'let there be light', and we affirm ex nihilo then it must have been Him who did it. If v2 is a result of v1 (for there is no other verse that could act on 2), then it must be included as part of day 1.

First He brings everything into existence, then goes to work on it.

Found a critic (paul seely, a christian whom JP Holding butted heads with a couple times on related issues) who tries to deny Biblical inerrancy in saying that its wrong. In one part of his paper, he makes the claim that the Bible asserts the earth was first covered with water (referring to Gen 1:2) but then ignores other creation statements in the Bible. Psalm 104 says that God first laid the foundation of the earth and THEN covered it with the deep. Slap on the wrist to Seely.


This following point implies that Genesis be critically examined with an eye on the medium of its delivery, and also to a consideration of the ancient audience for whom it was original devised.

I have avoided saying for whom it was written, because I do not think people read it.

Even as late as the time of Jesus, illiteracy was extremely high. But that is not my point concerning the idea that Genesis was actually dramatically presented.

Genesis was essentially a "play," presented by a cast of men for whom there was tremendous reverence. These men were the sons and grandsons of Aaron to follow, who are still among us even today, using the name of Cohen or a similar derivation.

These men worked in pairs and used their hands as aids to remember what would be called the script today. This is one reason that the different sources, J and E for instance, are not verbatim copies. The cues on the digits of the four fingers were marked with practiced and ritually copied Hebrew letters.

To support this, I have a source which shows the actual hands and the key to how the cues MUST ritually be organized.

Yes, I could post it as an avatar... as soon as I replace this pocketPC which I am using. When I do so, I have much to bring to your attention concerning this.

For now, my point is that the present criticism is harsh for the gendre of this beautiful and artful drama. It was not a science school book, nor an intended news report of what happened. It was an entrance into the mystery of what God told Moses... and, a container of a hidden priestly art even known today to have existed, one evidenced by the special blessing ceremony performed by the Jews called the Kohanim.

So, the detailed examination of these fine points in Genesis is just inappropriate to begin with, is what I am saying.

I mean, at a play in this day, we use a lot of imagination concerning the limitations of stage props and the necessary absence of details we are expected to understand.
Do you see what I mean, if I can be assumed correct concerning this gendre of "literature?"

[wienerdog]

For the YEC perspective I was looking through Henry Morris' newer book the Wisdom of Solomon, and he asserted it was an actual act, but then asserted that the 'heavens' were nothing more than empty space at the time (thus denying/ignoring the merism) of creation.
Did the ancient Hebrews even have the concept of empty space? I've always thought this was a concept that emerged from philosophy, long after Genesis 1 was written.
On the fourth day He created a great light to give light upon the earth.

What was the light they talk about on the first day? It didn't light up the earth as God had to make another light on the fourth day to light the earth.

I hope for the plant's sake the third day wasn't too long as plants don't do so well in the dark. :-(
I think one could argue that the second light replaced the first light, so that the plants were never in danger. I tend to think that they're describing different stages of the same light, but maybe that's because I'm an old earther.

Ok but my only problem with this (and this doesn't jab at any particular view whether YEC, OEC, TE or FI) idea is putting vss 1-2 outside of the seven days. This would mean at bare minimum that the deep existed (and therefore the earth) PRIOR to what some interpreters consider the first day (v3-5). That's never sat well with me.
I think vss 1 and 2 have to be part of day one.
Sailhamer has argued that the word for "beginning" in 1:1, reshit, refers to a beginning period in ancient Hebrew, not a beginning point. But even assuming he's correct, it's still at least possible that this beginning period is a part of the first day.

[Sinai]

On the fourth day He created a great light to give light upon the earth.

What was the light they talk about on the first day? It didn't light up the earth as God had to make another light on the fourth day to light the earth.

I hope for the plant's sake the third day wasn't too long as plants don't do so well in the dark. :-(
I think one could argue that the second light replaced the first light, so that the plants were never in danger. I tend to think that they're describing different stages of the same light, but maybe that's because I'm an old earther.

You might note that the Bible refers to both the sun and the moon as being "great lights." Only from on or around the Earth would the moon be a "great light." If the vision of what happened on yom one was from the surface of the Earth (which seems likely), then the sun and the moon could have merely become visible on the fourth yom (due to cloud cover or other atmospheric conditions) and could have been formed on an earlier yom (before God made the plants).