What was before creation?
The Creator of course. What'd I win??
(haven't listened to the YouTube, yet, but will soon.)
Okay, just listened. First, was there something prior to the creation of the heavens and earth found in Genesis 1 and could that explain the dinosaurs?
No, the text gives no indication of this, and in fact it's not a possible inference. In verse 2 we find a very interesting sentence. The earth was formless and void. Was—meaning was, formess—unformed, void—unfilled.
First, regarding the word "was." Surprisingly, it actually means "was" and not "became" as some speculate. From the article
The Gap Theory—an Idea with Holes?
‘Was’ Means ‘Was’
A significant problem with this idea is that the Hebrew word for ‘was’ really should be translated ‘was’. It should not be translated ‘became’. It is the Hebrew verb of being, hayah, and normally it is simply translated ‘was’. In all the standard translations of the Old Testament, that is the way this verse is rendered. On some occasions, in an unusual situation if the context requires it, the word can be translated ‘became’. There are some instances like that in the Old Testament.
By far the tremendous majority of times, however, when the verb is used, it is simply translated ‘was’. In the absence of any indication in the immediate context that it should be rendered by a change of state, where it became something which it wasn’t, one would normally assume it was simply a declarative statement describing how the situation existed at the time. The earth was, in response to God’s creative fiat, initially without form and void.
Some people use Isaiah 45:18 as an argument for the use of ‘became’ in Genesis 1:2. In this verse, Isaiah says that God created the earth not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. The word ‘in vain’ is the same as tohu; that is, the same word translated ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2. So ‘gap’ theorists say that since God did not create it that way, it must have become that way. But again, the context is significant. In Isaiah, the context requires the use of the translation ‘in vain’. That is, God did not create the earth without a purpose; He created it to be inhabited. Genesis 1 tells us then how He brought form to the unformed earth and inhabitants to the empty earth. It was not really finished until He said so at the end of the six days of creation.
The word tohu is actually translated 10 different ways in about 20 occurrences in the Old Testament. Isaiah 45:19 has the same word, and there it has to be translated ‘vainly’ or ‘in vain’. It is also proper to translate it that way in Isaiah 45:18. It depends on the context as to how it is to be precisely translated. In Genesis 1:2 the context simply indicates the earth had no structure as yet. It was unformed; it was not even spherical at that point, but was comprised of only the basic elements of earth material.
So was means was, and the text is simply describing what earth was like on the first day of creation.
Look at the text carefully you should see pretty clear the intended meaning. To paraphrase: In the beginning God created something, and here is what its initial form was like. God created the earth in the beginning, but at that time it was not only unfilled with all the things it has today, but it was also
unformed. That word is key to understanding the authors intent. It didn't have its shape yet! In the beginning, it was merely waters, which are formless, and can only take the shape of their container.
You see, had the text said the earth was merely unfilled, that would probably work with your speculation. But it was also formless. Keep in mind also, the ancient biblical writers were not understanding the term earth in the same way you are.
Erets was merely a term that meant land.
And God called the dry land Earth—Gen. 1:10
So in the beginning, says the writer, God created the land and the sky. But at that time, the land was still unformed and was described as waters. In the next several paragraphs we see God forming the land and the heavens, and filling them. The six days are a miraculous transformation of the formless and empty earth into the masterpiece we see today.
Were the days consecutive and literal?
Now regarding the hebrew word
yom which is translated "day," there is absolutely nothing in the original language that makes this word any different that the english word day. People often elude to some kind of nuance in the original language that english readers cannot see. This is utter nonsense. Day in english is virtually identical to
yom in hebrew in meaning and usage. The term in english can be used in a number of ways literally and figuratively, just as the hebrew word
yom can.
In my grandfathers day, he walked to school every day, and barely made it home before the day ended.
Here in english you have 3 different understandings of the word in one sentence. But notice also, those meanings are not interchangeable. Each occurrence has a specific meaning in its particular context and can't mean anything else. The same is true in the Bible. The days of Genesis mean morning and evening days. They can't mean anything else. This is certainly how Moses understood them.
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: ..... 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Here the work week is specifically compared to the creation week and literal days for both are clearly indicated.
Hope this helps.
PS, quick note about dinosaurs. Creationists don't believe they existed millions of years ago, but were created with and alongside man. Is there evidence for this? Ever wondered where all those dragon legends came from in every culture? Just about every ancient culture has legends of man slaying large reptilian beasts and riding on all kinds of fame afterward. They are found everywhere. Creationists believe these were exaggerated stories about real dinosaurs that men encountered.
Dinos after the flood were likely very vulnerable to human hunters. Despite their depictions in popular movies, they were likely very slow and clumsy creatures and easy to capture and kill. T-Rex likely had a top speed of 10 mph, and probably opted not to run at all, as a fall for him would have been fatal. I think him and all of the other dinosaurs were hunted to extinction in the first couple hundred years after the flood. Hunters were given a great deal of notoriety at that time (Nimrod for instance) and dinosaurs made for some very interesting hunting tales, as they looked much more dangerous than they really were. The smarter mammal predators were another story, as they had the agility and intelligence to avoid human hunters, and fight back much more effectively.
Some articles for further reading:
Dragon Legends—Truths Behind the Tales
Dragons: Fact of fable?
Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends
Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part II]
What Happened to the Dinosaurs?
