• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Is Scripture still inerrant according to theistic evolution?

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,892
3,371
Hartford, Connecticut
✟386,708.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Kingdom of Heaven is not a new idea—it is the restoration of the original design. God is going to restore this world to His original plan and purpose.
Never said it was a new thing. But no, the text doesn't say that the kingdom of God is equivalent to concepts in Genesis. The passage you cited additionally says nothing about Genesis or how Genesis 1:1-3 is to be understood.

Matthew 13:31–32 (KJV) Jesus says the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed—smallest of seeds, but when it grows, it becomes a tree where birds rest.

This literally has nothing to do with Genesis, it's language from a parable about heaven and about a tree.
 
Upvote 0

John Bauer

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
521
352
Vancouver
✟84,772.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
People who accept evolution also accept that God created the universe. The difference is that "evolutionists" also accept the way He did it.

Only thing I would add to make that fit my stance, inspired by Beale and Walton: “… and Genesis 1 is not that story.”


Formless and void in verse 2 is the material origin.

You will need to explain how tohu wa-bohu (without form and void, or empty wasteland, or formless and empty) indicates material origin. Keep in mind that this expression is used elsewhere in Scripture. Does it indicate material origin in those cases, too?

For me, one question that arises immediately: What is formless and empty?

“The heavens and the earth.”

Indeed, and you have just conceded that it’s not material origin. Which is good, because it’s not.
 
Upvote 0

John Bauer

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
521
352
Vancouver
✟84,772.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Fundamentalists dogmatically insist on constant and continuous “verbal inerrancy” in the entire text. … [T]oday’s fundamentalists attempt to extract the truth from the form rather than the substance of the text. The fundamentalist’s error imputes God’s Word into every word the author wrote. … [T]he fundamentalist assumes that the wits of man can completely contain and express in words an idea from the mind of God.

I think you are overstating things. I am a fundamentalist; I don’t do these things.

You would have to redefine fundamentalist to mean “someone who subscribes to verbal plenary inspiration,” which wouldn’t really be a legitimate move.
 
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
269
44
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟2,951.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
For me, one question that arises immediately: What is formless and empty?
Science absolutely has an answer for what the Earth was like when Genesis 1:2 says it was “formless and empty.”
Genesis says the Earth was:

  • formless → not shaped yet
  • empty → nothing living yet
  • dark → thick clouds and no clear sky
  • covered in deep waters → early oceans forming
Science says the early Earth was:
  • not shaped
  • not filled
  • dark and cloudy
  • covered in water once it cooled
Different language, same picture.
Indeed, and you have just conceded that it’s not material origin.
Are you kidding me? According to Cosmos hosts Sagun and Tyson the "stuff", "dust" or elements that make up the earth and made up Adam were produced in a Star. The universe was in a hot, dense plasma state before atoms existed.
The ingredients were:
  • Quarks came first
  • Protons and neutrons formed next (each made of 3 quarks)
  • Electrons were already around as free particles
  • Atoms only appeared once the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to stick together

  • quarks (building blocks of protons and neutrons)
  • electrons (flying freely)
  • photons (light particles)
  • neutrinos (tiny ghostlike particles)
  • plasma (a glowing soup of charged particles)
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,892
3,371
Hartford, Connecticut
✟386,708.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Science absolutely has an answer for what the Earth was like when Genesis 1:2 says it was “formless and empty.”
Genesis says the Earth was:

  • formless → not shaped yet
  • empty → nothing living yet
  • dark → thick clouds and no clear sky
  • covered in deep waters → early oceans forming
Science says the early Earth was:
  • not shaped
  • not filled
  • dark and cloudy
  • covered in water once it cooled
Different language, same picture.

Are you kidding me? According to Cosmos hosts Sagun and Tyson the "stuff", "dust" or elements that make up the earth and made up Adam were produced in a Star. The universe was in a hot, dense plasma state before atoms existed.
The ingredients were:
  • Quarks came first
  • Protons and neutrons formed next (each made of 3 quarks)
  • Electrons were already around as free particles
  • Atoms only appeared once the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to stick together

  • quarks (building blocks of protons and neutrons)
  • electrons (flying freely)
  • photons (light particles)
  • neutrinos (tiny ghostlike particles)
  • plasma (a glowing soup of charged particles)
You know who also says that the earth was formless dark and watery? Basically every ancient near east culture, including those that pre existed the isrealites. So, Egyptians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, and more. How do you propose that these ancient nations all seemed to know this?

I imagine this story where the ancient Egyptians captured Adam and Eve and started writing down their revelations in the rosetta stone.
 
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
269
44
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟2,951.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
You would have to redefine fundamentalist
Historically, fundamentalist centered around five points:

  • The Bible is without error
  • Jesus was born of a virgin
  • Jesus’ death paid for sin
  • Jesus physically rose from the dead
  • Jesus performed real miracles

Modern fundamentalists often add more:

  • a literal six‑day creation
  • a specific end‑times timeline
  • a particular view of gender roles
  • a particular view of politics
  • a specific translation of the Bible
  • a specific church tradition
Once added, these become treated as just as essential as the original five.

Independent fundamentalists do not agree on.
  • End‑times timeline (pre‑trib, mid‑trib, post‑trib, no‑trib)
  • Bible translation (KJV‑only vs. multiple translations)
  • Creation (young‑earth vs. old‑earth vs. gap theory)
  • Salvation (lordship salvation vs. “easy‑believism”)
  • Holiness rules (clothing, music, alcohol, movies, dancing)
  • Women’s roles (strict complementarian vs. moderate)
  • Calvinism vs. Arminianism (this one splits entire denominations)
  • Spiritual gifts (cessationist vs. continuationist)
  • Politics (some tie faith to a party; others reject that)
They call these “secondary issues,” but they fight over them constantly.
Can we add do not play with cards to the list?
 
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
269
44
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟2,951.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
the text doesn't say that the kingdom of God is equivalent to concepts in Genesis.
Why don't we save some time here and you tell me what the Kingdom of God is today and what the Kingdom of God will be during the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Is it ok to assume that this is what Jesus was talking about when He said: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. -"
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,892
3,371
Hartford, Connecticut
✟386,708.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why don't we save some time here and you tell me what the Kingdom of God is today and what the Kingdom of God will be during the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Is it ok to assume that this is what Jesus was talking about when He said: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. -"
None of this has anything to do with Genesis. We could go verse by verse through the beatitudes if you want. But nothing in there is about the tohu va bohu earth.

Just face it, there is nothing in Jesus's parables relating to the mustard seed, that has anything to do with the pre created earth.

"Well Jesus said there was a mustard seed and..."

Sorry, not about Genesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Bauer
Upvote 0

John Bauer

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
521
352
Vancouver
✟84,772.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Genesis says the earth was “formless” or not shaped yet …

What does that mean? That the planet was not yet spherical in shape?

Science says the early Earth was not shaped …

What is “the early Earth” here? And where does science say this?

Are you kidding me?

No.

According to [the television show] *Cosmos* …, the "stuff," "dust," or elements that make up the earth and made up Adam were produced in a star.

How is that relevant? Again, if I ask you, “What is formless and empty?” and you answer, “The heavens and the earth,” then you have conceded that it’s not about material origins—because “the heavens and the earth” are already materially present at that point.

The universe was in a hot, dense state …
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Unapologetically Premillennial !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,581
12,102
Space Mountain!
✟1,464,665.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
... I'm going to keep to my NOMA type of approach with Genesis 1 and Evolution. But even so, it would be cool to find out some time down the road that Day 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 was a poetic way of saying:


But of course, as it stands now, I have no way of knowing this is 'the way it was.'
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
269
44
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟2,951.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
How do you propose that these ancient nations all seemed to know this?
People liked to sit around the fire and tell stories, and the oral tradition goes all the way back to Adam and Abraham. Moses eventually wrote down what people had been passing along from the beginning. Adam and Noah’s father Lamech were alive at the same time for 56 years according to Genesis 5, so the details about Noah and the ark naturally trace back through that overlap. The Epic of Gilgamesh also preserves an ancient flood story that closely resembles Noah’s, showing that memories of the event were widespread. Studying the oral tradition helps make sense of how these early accounts were remembered and transmitted.
Again, if I ask you, “What is formless and empty?”
I don’t know everything about everything, and I don’t need to be insulted for it. I’m doing my best to answer your questions, but I need you to tell me what you actually want to talk about so I don’t waste time on something you’re not interested in. Formless and void simply means God had not yet separated light from darkness, had not separated the waters above from the waters below, and had not brought out the dry land. In the beginning the earth had to cool, the steam condensed into water, and the whole planet was covered by that water before anything was shaped or filled.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,892
3,371
Hartford, Connecticut
✟386,708.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
People liked to sit around the fire and tell stories, and the oral tradition goes all the way back to Adam and Abraham. Moses eventually wrote down what people had been passing along from the beginning. Adam and Noah’s father Lamech were alive at the same time for 56 years according to Genesis 5, so the details about Noah and the ark naturally trace back through that overlap. The Epic of Gilgamesh also preserves an ancient flood story that closely resembles Noah’s, showing that memories of the event were widespread. Studying the oral tradition helps make sense of how these early accounts were remembered and transmitted.
Sure. And how would Adam have even written the flood narrative to be stolen by the Mesopotamians, if Adam wasn't even alive and on Noah's ark to know that story? Or do you believe that the Mesopotamians just stole Noah's story? And who's to say the reverse didn't happen, that Adam didn't steal revelation from the Egyptians?

Lastly, would this mean that pagan texts are at least partially divinely inspired too?

Why not simply consider the possibility that the text is referencing a shared contextual background of the ancient near east?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

John Bauer

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
521
352
Vancouver
✟84,772.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I don’t know everything about everything, and I don’t need to be insulted for it.

I did not insult you, and I can’t figure out why you felt insulted by my questions that merely sought clarification.

I’m doing my best to answer your questions, but I need you to tell me what you actually want to talk about so I don’t waste time on something you’re not interested in.

I did specify what I want to talk about—and clearly, I thought. You said that tohu wa-bohu in verse 2 “is the material origin.” I asked you to explain how. I also reminded you that this expression is used elsewhere in Scripture, and asked if it indicated material origin in those cases, too.

You replied by saying that science has an answer for what the earth in verse 2 was like. Great, but that isn’t what I asked. (That also raised new questions for me, like what it means to say the earth was “not shaped yet”—which you also didn’t answer.)

Formless and void simply means …

No, I did not ask you what it means. I asked you for the grammatical referent of “formless and void” in the text. What exactly is being described as tohu wa-bohu?

The text of verse 2 supplies the only answer you can give: “The earth.” And therein lies the rub. The text forces you to admit that this isn’t about material origins. The phrase is describing the condition of a physically existing earth. “God had not yet separated light from darkness,” you rightly observed, “he had not separated the waters above from the waters below, and had not brought out the dry land.” Indeed, but please notice that the earth physically existed—just as it did in Jeremiah 2:43, where the earth is once again described as tohu wa-bohu. The Hebrew phrase in either text is not about the origin of the earth but its condition.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,540
616
Private
✟142,689.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think you are overstating things. I am a fundamentalist; I don’t do these things.
Perhaps a different definition of fundamentalist would have been better. The one I prefaced in my post were fundamentalists defined as those who attempt to extract the Truth from the form rather than the substance of the text.

My tradition extracts the theological truth from the substance, not the form, of the text. For example, Genesis presents not the religious vision of the patriarchs (whose deeds it recounts) but the religious visions of the era of its final composition. Taking the accidents of time and place away, the creation story in Genesis tells us about the nature of time, reaching its climax in the Sabbath. The text tells us about the nature of the world, reaching its perfection in God’s pleasure with what God had created, God’s blessing and sanctifying creation. It also tells us about the character of humankind, man and women, perfect in God’s image, like God, but tragically flawed. Remembering that the substance of the text tells us about a timeless God, we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.

When the sacred writers put the story together in ca. 450 BC, the issues were clear: How was the world made such that Israel served God in a Temple that was destroyed and now rebuilt, in a land that was lost and now regained, in a holy way of life that was set down in Sinai, violated but then recovered and renewed? The central theme for the Israelites in this story is the Exodus. Prior to the Exodus experience, the Hebrews as community lacked an organizing principle. If people are to be bound together, they do so not only by blood and soil, but also by shared experience. The Israelite community begins with Exodus, an experience that creates hope and establishes direction and purpose. In Exodus, God acted in Israel’s behalf and laid upon them lasting obligations to God and fellow human beings. Exodus provides the model for how the people of God should seek justice in society as the only appropriate response to the liberation they had experienced.

An important distinction between the secular and sacred historian is the primacy of events and the primacy of meaning. The secular historian, modern or ancient, gives primacy to events and derives from them his or her “truth.” No serious historian would invent or alter events, or ignore controverting facts to prop up a weak hypothesis. Our divinely inspired authors, giving primacy to God’s inspiration, may well have melded and manipulated the traditional histories of Israel to make their Truth tangible. They were theologians first, secular historians second.
 
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
269
44
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟2,951.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I did specify what I want to talk about—and clearly, I thought. You said that tohu wa-bohu in verse 2 “is the material origin.” I asked you to explain how. I also reminded you that this expression is used elsewhere in Scripture, and asked if it indicated material origin in those cases, too.
Most every word in Genesis would take all the books in the world to explain. You’re asking several questions that would require a lot of detail, if they can even be explained fully. My goal here is simply to give you the key words so that, if you’re interested, you can explore them further.

“Beginning” (the first word in the Bible) is the template for every other beginning in Scripture. Every beginning in the Bible is a smaller version of that first Beginning. I’m not going to guess at what you’re asking beyond that, so I’ll leave it there.

In verse 2 we are dealing with the beginning of the earth. You used the phrase “material origin,” and you want this explained from the Bible, not from science. So we look at the phrase “without form and void.” I thought I had answered this before, but we can go over it again. The verse describes the condition of the world at its beginning. Science can help us understand the physical side, but there is no reason for God to include all that detail in Scripture.

This is still the first day. God created the heavens and then the earth, but the earth at this point is still without form and void. Light and darkness have not yet been separated. That happens in verse 3. Since you asked only about verse 2, that’s as far as we need to go.

If anyone wants to continue, verse 3 is where God separates light from darkness, day from night. This matters because the first day is the pattern—the original. Every other day is a copy of that first day. Hasidic teachers, Schroeder, Sagan, and even Tyson talk about the importance of the first day. I talk about the first planck unit, but I said I would not drift.

Next, God separates the waters above from the waters below. Then He gathers the waters so dry land appears. Now we have an earth, and this is the third day. This is where some people like to argue about 24‑hour days, but that doesn’t seem to be part of your question.

So if what you want is what the Bible says about “formless and void,” that’s the heart of it. I try to stay focused and not drift into things you’re not asking about. I took four teacher‑training classes at Bible college to learn how to communicate, and I still have two more to go. I’m an unfinished work.

What interests me may not be of interest to you.
 
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
269
44
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟2,951.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
You will need to explain how tohu wa-bohu (without form and void, or empty wasteland, or formless and empty) indicates material origin
To show how tohu va‑bohu points to material origin, you only need to stay inside the text of Genesis and the logic of the Hebrew. No controversy, no science debates, no gap theories, no ruin‑reconstruction. Just the plain meaning of the words in their context.

What tohu va‑bohu actually describes​

The phrase does not describe:
  • chaos
  • destruction
  • judgment
  • a ruined world
It describes unshaped material.
Tohu = without structure, without boundaries, without arrangement Bohu = without filling, without inhabitants, without content
Together they describe matter that exists but has not yet been organized.
This is why the phrase appears after God creates the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1. The material is there. It simply has no form yet.

Why this indicates material origin​

Genesis 1:2 is the first time the Bible describes the condition of the earth. The earth is present, but:
  • it has no shape
  • it has no boundaries
  • it has no land
  • it has no sky
  • it has no light
  • it has no function
This is exactly what “material origin” means: the raw material exists before it is shaped into a world.
If there were no material, the text would not say “without form and void.” It would say “not there.”
Instead, the Hebrew describes existing substance that is:
  • unformed (tohu)
  • unfilled (bohu)
That is the biblical picture of material origin.

How the next verses confirm this​

Everything God does after verse 2 is shaping and filling what already exists.
  • Day 1: separates light from darkness
  • Day 2: separates waters above from waters below
  • Day 3: gathers waters so dry land appears
  • Day 4–6: fills what He has formed
This is the classic pattern:
Form → Fill
Genesis 1:2 is the moment before the forming begins.
You cannot “form” something that does not exist. You cannot “fill” something that has no structure.
So the text itself requires material already present.

The simplest, board‑safe explanation​

Tohu va‑bohu describes the earth at the moment of its material origin—real substance, but not yet shaped or filled. It is not chaos or destruction, but unformed potential waiting for God’s ordering word.
If you want, I can polish this into a short, tight paragraph you can drop directly into your thread.

Keep in mind that this expression is used elsewhere in Scripture. Does it indicate material origin in those cases, too?
The other places where tohu va‑bohu appears confirm the same pattern you see in Genesis 1:2. The phrase always describes something that exists, but is unstructured, uninhabited, and without purpose. It never describes non‑existence. It never describes immateriality. It never describes “nothingness.”

Do we need to go over the meaning of the word "Pattern" again? I was a carpenter and a draftsman, so I can go into a lot of detail. I had a job once where they build kitchen cabinets. I made a template that they could use when they cut the round part of the top of the doors. So everything was a copy of the origional.
No, I did not ask you what it means. I asked you for the grammatical referent of “formless and void” in the text. What exactly is being described as tohu wa-bohu?
The grammatical referent in Genesis 1:2 is explicit and narrow:

The word “earth” (הָאָרֶץ, ha’aretz) is what is being described as tohu va‑bohu.

Nothing else in the verse carries the grammar that would make it the referent.


How the Hebrew grammar makes this clear​

Genesis 1:2 opens with a noun + verb construction:

וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ ve‑ha’aretz hayetah tohu va‑vohu “And the earth was formless and void.”

  • ha’aretz = the subject
  • hayetah = the verb “was” (feminine singular, matching ha’aretz)
  • tohu va‑bohu = the predicate describing the subject
The grammar leaves no ambiguity. The earth is what “was tohu va‑bohu.”

Not the heavens. Not the universe. Not “creation” in general. Not “nothingness.” Not a prior world.

Only the earth.


Why this matters for interpretation​

Because the referent is the earth, the phrase describes:

  • something that exists
  • something that is present
  • something that is in a condition
You cannot grammatically describe “nothing” as “formless and void.” Hebrew does not allow that reading.

The text is describing the earth in its earliest state, before God shapes it.


The simplest, board‑safe sentence​

In Genesis 1:2, the phrase “formless and void” grammatically refers to the earth itself—the newly created earth in an unformed, unfilled state.
 
Upvote 0

John Bauer

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
521
352
Vancouver
✟84,772.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Perhaps a different definition of fundamentalist would have been better. The one I prefaced in my post were fundamentalists defined as those who attempt to extract the Truth from the form rather than the substance of the text.

Yes, but I included that in my response when I quoted you verbatim: “[T]oday’s fundamentalists attempt to extract the truth from the form rather than the substance of the text.” That is not descriptive but polemical, of course, a criticism disguised as a definition—and a question-begging one at that. (Anyone affirming verbal inspiration is prejudiced as committing an error before argument begins.)

So, you have left my response to you unaddressed. Even if we grant for the sake of argument your illegitimate redefinition of fundamentalist as “someone who subscribes to verbal plenary inspiration,” you haven’t demonstrated that such a position necessarily entails the error you identified.

I would advise against attempting to define a group by the conclusion you want to reach about them, especially when your argument is unstable in the first place. In classical Christian doctrine, the form of Scripture (the words) is precisely the divinely ordained vehicle of the substance (the meaning). Fundamentalists, such as yours truly, do not view isolated words as truth in abstraction, nor do we think the form of Scripture is detachable from its meaning. Rather, adherents of verbal plenary inspiration assert that the form is the medium of the substance, that God speaks truth through human words such that the semantic content carried by those words is what God intends.

It is also worth remembering that true communication, according to fundamentalists, does not depend on exhaustive comprehension (thus denying your claim that verbal inspiration assumes the human mind can “contain and express an idea from the mind of God”). Analogical knowledge suffices. God can truly reveal without being exhaustively comprehended. Fundamentalists have consistently insisted on this Creator–creature distinction, that the ectypal knowledge conveyed in Scripture, accommodated to human language and ken, truly and sufficiently reveals God according to our creaturely mode, without comprehending or reproducing the archetypal knowledge God has of himself. To deny this would undermine revelation altogether, not merely inerrancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
269
44
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟2,951.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
So, you have left my response to you unaddressed.
This is what I mean by abuse. I did my best to answer your questions, and you responded with hostility. I’m not going to invest any more time answering questions from someone who shows no gratitude for the effort I put in. For the record, I stopped reading your post at that point. There’s no reason for me to subject myself to more of your abuse.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,892
3,371
Hartford, Connecticut
✟386,708.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To show how tohu va‑bohu points to material origin, you only need to stay inside the text of Genesis and the logic of the Hebrew. No controversy, no science debates, no gap theories, no ruin‑reconstruction. Just the plain meaning of the words in their context.

What tohu va‑bohu actually describes​

The phrase does not describe:
  • chaos
  • destruction
  • judgment
  • a ruined world
It describes unshaped material.
Tohu = without structure, without boundaries, without arrangement Bohu = without filling, without inhabitants, without content
Together they describe matter that exists but has not yet been organized.
This is why the phrase appears after God creates the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1. The material is there. It simply has no form yet.

Why this indicates material origin​

Genesis 1:2 is the first time the Bible describes the condition of the earth. The earth is present, but:
  • it has no shape
  • it has no boundaries
  • it has no land
  • it has no sky
  • it has no light
  • it has no function
This is exactly what “material origin” means: the raw material exists before it is shaped into a world.
If there were no material, the text would not say “without form and void.” It would say “not there.”
Instead, the Hebrew describes existing substance that is:
  • unformed (tohu)
  • unfilled (bohu)
That is the biblical picture of material origin.

How the next verses confirm this​

Everything God does after verse 2 is shaping and filling what already exists.
  • Day 1: separates light from darkness
  • Day 2: separates waters above from waters below
  • Day 3: gathers waters so dry land appears
  • Day 4–6: fills what He has formed
This is the classic pattern:
Form → Fill
Genesis 1:2 is the moment before the forming begins.
You cannot “form” something that does not exist. You cannot “fill” something that has no structure.
So the text itself requires material already present.

The simplest, board‑safe explanation​

Tohu va‑bohu describes the earth at the moment of its material origin—real substance, but not yet shaped or filled. It is not chaos or destruction, but unformed potential waiting for God’s ordering word.
If you want, I can polish this into a short, tight paragraph you can drop directly into your thread.


The other places where tohu va‑bohu appears confirm the same pattern you see in Genesis 1:2. The phrase always describes something that exists, but is unstructured, uninhabited, and without purpose. It never describes non‑existence. It never describes immateriality. It never describes “nothingness.”

Do we need to go over the meaning of the word "Pattern" again? I was a carpenter and a draftsman, so I can go into a lot of detail. I had a job once where they build kitchen cabinets. I made a template that they could use when they cut the round part of the top of the doors. So everything was a copy of the origional.

The grammatical referent in Genesis 1:2 is explicit and narrow:

The word “earth” (הָאָרֶץ, ha’aretz) is what is being described as tohu va‑bohu.

Nothing else in the verse carries the grammar that would make it the referent.


How the Hebrew grammar makes this clear​

Genesis 1:2 opens with a noun + verb construction:

וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ ve‑ha’aretz hayetah tohu va‑vohu “And the earth was formless and void.”

  • ha’aretz = the subject
  • hayetah = the verb “was” (feminine singular, matching ha’aretz)
  • tohu va‑bohu = the predicate describing the subject
The grammar leaves no ambiguity. The earth is what “was tohu va‑bohu.”

Not the heavens. Not the universe. Not “creation” in general. Not “nothingness.” Not a prior world.

Only the earth.


Why this matters for interpretation​

Because the referent is the earth, the phrase describes:

  • something that exists
  • something that is present
  • something that is in a condition
You cannot grammatically describe “nothing” as “formless and void.” Hebrew does not allow that reading.

The text is describing the earth in its earliest state, before God shapes it.


The simplest, board‑safe sentence​

In Genesis 1:2, the phrase “formless and void” grammatically refers to the earth itself—the newly created earth in an unformed, unfilled state.
I think the complication with this response is that, it's not really material origins if the material is already present. For example, when God creates the Earth, he gathers the seas and reveals the dry land.

If I were in a swimming pool and someone gathered the waters to reveal me, that's not about my material origins if I'm already there just under the water.

Same with the heavens, or the expanse of the heavens, not really an object coming into existence, it's just a space between things that already exist, the water's above and below.

And the same would be for day one as well, God separates light from darkness. There is ordering but it's not as though this concept relates to material origins.

And the same with the animals. The earth brings them forth. It's not as though they weren't already present. I could bring forth a loaf of bread from my refrigerator, but that doesn't mean that the loaf of bread wasn't made or materially present beforehand.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0