Question about Genesis 1:1

[siliconwafer]

Is Genesis 1:1 a summary statement for the rest of what happens in Genesis 1 or does Genesis 1:1 describe what happened first followed by what happened second in Genesis 1:2 followed by what happened third in Genesis 1:3 and so on?

I was just wondering because some people say that the word translated as "created" in Genesis 1:1 uses the pluperfect tense and that Genesis 1:1 is describing something that is a done deal. They would say that Genesis 1:1 is not a topic sentence, but rather a statement of what happened first when God started to create things.

[RBerman]

Genesis 1:1 is a summary. Some people think it describes a "first creation" which was followed by a "second creation" beginning in verse 2, but they are mistaken.

[robrecht]

Is Genesis 1:1 a summary statement for the rest of what happens in Genesis 1 or does Genesis 1:1 describe what happened first followed by what happened second in Genesis 1:2 followed by what happened third in Genesis 1:3 and so on?

I was just wondering because some people say that the word translated as "created" in Genesis 1:1 uses the pluperfect tense and that Genesis 1:1 is describing something that is a done deal. They would say that Genesis 1:1 is not a topic sentence, but rather a statement of what happened first when God started to create things.

In my opinion the former is more true than the latter, but is still lacking in a correct syntactical understanding. See the grammatical analysis of Rashi, whereby Gen 1,1-3 is seen as a single sentence, within which 1,1 functions as an introductory temporal clause, 1,2 is a descriptive clause, and 1,3 is the first creative act of God. This is, imho, the best understanding of the consonental Hebrew underlying the masoretic text. This may indicate that the author was not advancing creatio ex nihilo here, which is why many object to this, but that may be a later Jewish and Christian understanding. Claus Westermann's monumental three-volume commentary provides a very good exposition of the supporting evidence of this view. Although he does not follow Rashi's syntax, he does explain it well. The view of Gn 1,1 as a temporal clause is easily combined with the view of 1,1 as a kind of section title. It resolves the syntactic difficulties in the least perplexing manner, and as a close parallel in Enuma Elish. As for corruption of the vocalization, the masoretic vocalization is very late so I do not find this to be much of an obstacle. The LXX is a much better witness to this reading. But see also the teaching of Hillel as an early witness to the alternative reading. But the eariest potential witness is found already in Gn 2,4b. John's prologue can also be seen as an early witness to this syntax.

[siliconwafer]

Genesis 1:1 is a summary. Some people think it describes a "first creation" which was followed by a "second creation" beginning in verse 2, but they are mistaken.

It seems like a summary statement. The rest of the verses after Genesis 1:1 elaborates on what is stated in Genesis 1:1.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I believe v.1 describes what happened first. Like a sculptor who begins with a lump of clay, v.1 describes God creating the universe as an unfinished product and proceeds to mold it in six days as He sees fit. Of course, it could also be a summary statement. I don't think it really matters if you hold to a literal interpretation because the picture remains the same. God, the divine artisan, beautifully creates and fashions everything from nothing.

[Jedidiah]

I'm in agreement with the blue guy.

Well, sort of.

[Phat8594]

Is Genesis 1:1 a summary statement for the rest of what happens in Genesis 1 or does Genesis 1:1 describe what happened first followed by what happened second in Genesis 1:2 followed by what happened third in Genesis 1:3 and so on

I think it is more of a "summary statement" or rather just a statement of fact.

heavens and earth, IMO, is not describing the literal stars and earth precisely....but rather it is a literary device called a merism used to describe the larger picture...a merism is where two parts, or opposites are used to convey the totality of which they are a part.....(other biblical merisms you might be familiar with are "knowledge of good and evil", "first and the last", "alpha and omega", etc.)

In other words by saying:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

What is being said is essentially:

"In the beginning, God created everything...from the heavens to the earth, and everything in between...there is nothing that exists, that wasn't created by God"


Pretty much the same merism appears again in Psalm 121:

My help comes from the Lord,
who made heaven and earth

I hope that makes sense.

[siliconwafer]

I think it is more of a "summary statement" or rather just a statement of fact.

heavens and earth, IMO, is not describing the literal stars and earth precisely....but rather it is a literary device called a merism used to describe the larger picture...a merism is where two parts, or opposites are used to convey the totality of which they are a part.....(other biblical merisms you might be familiar with are "knowledge of good and evil", "first and the last", "alpha and omega", etc.)

In other words by saying:



What is being said is essentially:

"In the beginning, God created everything...from the heavens to the earth, and everything in between...there is nothing that exists, that wasn't created by God"


Pretty much the same merism appears again in Psalm 121:




I hope that makes sense.

I agree. It is a summary statement.

[Jedidiah]

It is a summary of the creation of the universe up to the point in verse two where the account continues with, "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

[Stefcui]

"In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water."

The passage of genesis 1:1 & 2 reads differently in the Septuagint (above), seperating the events in an order. Accordingly, before the first day God created the heavens and the earth. The "heavens" likely represent the spiritual heavens, as the physical heavens are said to be created later. The earth, though, was created prior to the first day. It is shown here to be the oldest and first of all physical creation. It may have existed for billions of years before land was formed, for the initial earth was simply a gigantic water planet. I am not suggesting evolution, but that the earth itself existed prior to the days of creation. It must have been a great source of curiosity to the angels as they witnessed the Holy Spirit hovering over the surface to prepare the earth. We are not told how long this went on for, as the 1st day was relative to light.

I don't imagine that the earth or heavens were created only 7000-10,000 years ago. The earth was probably created a much longer period of time ago than even billions of years. Before there was an earth or heavens there was no such thing as time or space. I cannot image that God existed from all eternity but only recently decided to create anything. Why? It implies God got bored, or was incapable, or uncertain... The earth may be as old as eternity. The entire heavens were created after the earth, and the waters from earth were dispersed through the entire universe. The suns are largely made of hydrogen, helium and oxygen, the components of water...

[37818]

Is Genesis 1:1 a summary statement for the rest of what happens in Genesis 1 or does Genesis 1:1 describe what happened first followed by what happened second in Genesis 1:2 followed by what happened third in Genesis 1:3 and so on?

I was just wondering because some people say that the word translated as "created" in Genesis 1:1 uses the pluperfect tense and that Genesis 1:1 is describing something that is a done deal. They would say that Genesis 1:1 is not a topic sentence, but rather a statement of what happened first when God started to create things.

Well, from what I understand most 6 day creationist hold that was the beginning of the first day. God creating matter first followed by the creation of light.

Now I do not hold that view, though I believe in the literal 6 day creation days that follow. So if the universe be 13.8 billion years old then that would be the time between Genesis 1:1 and when God made our Sun to light up when He said, "Let there be light" on the first day. And then by the fourth day, the solar wind would blow the debris past earth, making the Sun visible to be the greater light for the day, and revealing the Moon being the lesser light along with making the stars visible for the night.