Is Scripture still inerrant according to theistic evolution?

Job 33:6 · 2026-02-07T11:16:44-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
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.

Another observation here. You point out that tohu may mean "without purpose". Well, um, I have a car that won't start, it is without purpose. But that wouldn't mean that if I were to fix it, that I would be speaking of material origins.

o_mlly · 2026-02-07T11:26:13-0600

John Bauer said:
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.” ... your illegitimate redefinition of fundamentalist as “someone who subscribes to verbal plenary inspiration" ...

I did not write what you claim. I suggest using the platform's quote utility to avoid this error in future.

If your particular brand of fundamentalism is not as I described then my comment does not apply to you. Go in peace.

John Bauer · 2026-02-07T12:18:03-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
Most every word in Genesis would take all the books in the world to explain.

Comprehensively? Sure. But I didn’t ask for comprehensive. Adequate will suffice, and it can be done in a few sentences.

Especially the Hebrew expression that we are examining. It is used maybe three times in all of the OT, so it’s semantic range and meaning is not terribly complicated to explain.

Firstlightdawn said:
You’re asking several questions that would require a lot of detail, …

No, I am not. I am asking essentially one question about your claim regarding tohu wa-bohu.

Firstlightdawn said:
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.

[Emphasis added.]

No, determining the meaning of tohu wa-bohu in Genesis 1:2 requires examining its usage across the Old Testament to establish its semantic range, and then interpreting the phrase within the immediate context of Genesis. And whether there or elsewhere in the OT, “The phrase always describes something that exists,” as your AI model said (“but is unstructured, uninhabited, and without purpose”). That is correct.

Firstlightdawn said:
My goal here is simply to give you the key words so that, if you’re interested, you can explore them further.

I appreciate your willingness to point me toward key terms for further study, thank you. I should mention, though, that this is an area I have already explored fairly extensively over the years, both exegetically and through a number of scholarly works. So my question is not arising from unfamiliarity with the Hebrew expression, but from the fact that your conclusion seems to differ from what I have come to understand through that in-depth study. I am simply trying to better understand how you arrived at your reading.

That being said, I am restricting my response to your reading of the expression tohu wa-bohu only. All other terms, from bərēʾšît to yôm, would likely be beside the point and a distraction.

Firstlightdawn said:
You used the phrase “material origin,” and you want this explained from the Bible, not from science.

No, it was you who used the phrase “material origin,” connecting it to tohu wa-bohu (source), which is what sparked my question.

Firstlightdawn said:
[Genesis 1:2] describes the condition of the world at its beginning. … [T]he earth at this point is still without form and void. …

That is exactly the point I raised in my responses to you (emphasis added):

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. … The Hebrew phrase … is not about the origin of the earth but its condition. (source)

As your AI model said (source), “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,” etc. “You cannot ‘form’ something that does not exist. You cannot ‘fill’ something that has no structure.”

Exactly.

Firstlightdawn said:
[After the separating,] now we have an earth, and this is the third day.

Now? I don’t think so. According to verse 2, the earth materially existed on the first day, as you said yourself in the post that followed this one, admitting that the earth materially exists in verse 2, just not yet organized. “What tohu va‑bohu actually describes [is] matter that exists but has not yet been organized,” you confessed. “The material is there.”

Yes, exactly. Ergo, your initial claim was incorrect. Verse 2 is not the material origin. If I may, it is the functional origin, God establishing functions and functionaries through separating and naming speech acts.

Firstlightdawn said:
This is exactly what “material origin” means: the raw material exists before it is shaped into a world.

No, “material origin” refers to the origin of the material in question. If “the raw material exists” already, then its origin is not in view but presupposed. What you are describing is not material origin but functional origin—the ordering of something that already exists materially, which is an entirely different category.

Firstlightdawn said:
Do we need to go over the meaning of the word "pattern" again?

Again? We haven’t encountered that term in our discussion yet. I think you’re referring to a discussion with someone else.

Firstlightdawn said:
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. … The grammar leaves no ambiguity. The earth is what “was tohu va‑bohu.”

Which is precisely what I said (source). You needed to address that point, not reiterate it.

Firstlightdawn said:
The text is describing the earth in its earliest state, …

Correct, the earth’s earliest state, not its material origin.

Firstlightdawn said:
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.

God bless you. Your training is certainly paying off, for discussions with you are refreshing and a delight, truly and genuinely.

Firstlightdawn said:
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.

Wow. Okay, I take back that compliment. (Ironically, the comment you highlighted was not even directed at you, but rather someone else in a different discussion.)

John Bauer · 2026-02-07T12:23:15-0600

o_mlly said:
If your particular brand of fundamentalism is not as I described, then my comment does not apply to you. Go in peace.

Speaking as a fundamentalist, the group targeted by your comments, I am not aware of any fundamentalists who fit your description, as my responses have indicated. If you are not inclined to support your claim with evidence, that is fine with me. But that means the discussion must end there.

Akita Suggagaki · 2026-02-07T12:34:34-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
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.

Yes but I don’t think the authors were interested in such a distinction. “When God created”. “It was good.” All of it and It was also orderly and no other being did it.

Theological points made.

o_mlly · 2026-02-07T12:38:02-0600

John Bauer said:
Speaking as a fundamentalist, the group targeted by your comments, I am not aware of any fundamentalists who fit your description, as my responses have indicated. If you are not inclined to support your claim with evidence, that is fine with me. But that means the discussion must end there.

Why do you feel attacked? I did not "target" anyone. And, why did you misquote me in your response?

"Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, is a religious movement emphasizing biblical literalism" (Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia).

The exchange ended when I posted to you to "Go in peace".

Akita Suggagaki · 2026-02-07T12:38:15-0600

John Bauer said:
your illegitimate redefinition of fundamentalist

What is your legit definition?

John Bauer · 2026-02-07T14:21:18-0600

o_mlly said:
Why do you feel attacked? I did not "target" anyone.

I do not (and did not say I felt) attacked. “Targeted” in my usage was descriptive, not emotive or psychological. Your remarks were directed toward a group, and I belong to that group. That is a matter of logical reference, not offense.

o_mlly said:
And, why did you misquote me in your response?

As for misquoting, none was intended. If you believe I represented your words inaccurately, identify the specific point and I will gladly correct it. Otherwise, the substantive issue remains.

o_mlly said:
"Christian fundamentalism … is a religious movement emphasizing biblical literalism" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Christian fundamentalism").

That is accurate, keeping in mind that biblical literalism here refers to

the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).

That is from Wikipedia, s.v. "Biblical literalism."

It is true that "this Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians" (ibid.).

o_mlly said:
The exchange ended when I posted to you to "Go in peace".

So this is a new exchange? Weird. It's even on the same topic.

John Bauer · 2026-02-07T14:22:06-0600

Akita Suggagaki said:
What is your legit definition?

I think the quote from Wikipedia he provided (and I expanded upon) captures it well enough.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-07T17:14:55-0600

John Bauer said:
I think the quote from Wikipedia he provided (and I expanded upon) captures it well enough.

Y'know, if all it takes to be a 'fundie' is to adhere to the 5 original essentials, then I suppose I'm very nearly a 'fundie' too.

It's strange how it works out like that in the wash. ^_^

Fervent · 2026-02-07T17:38:48-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
Y'know, if all it takes to be a 'fundie' is to adhere to the 5 original essentials, then I suppose I'm very nearly a 'fundie' too.

It's strange how it works out like that in the wash.

Yeah, characterizing fundamentalism in that way really seems to be casting a wide net. Though I suspect it was intended to have a more restrictive understanding of each of the points than the way they were phrased allows for.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-08T02:04:21-0600

John Bauer said:
So my question is not arising from unfamiliarity with the Hebrew expression, but from the fact that your conclusion seems to differ from what I have come to understand through that in-depth study. I am simply trying to better understand how you arrived at your reading.

I am 500 years into the future. Then everyone will see what I see now. It is really no big deal compared to someone like Ezekiel, who was 3,000 years ahead of his time and gave us incredible detail of the house or throne of God. Of course we have checks and balances and ways to confirm what is real.

Also, I love Hasidim and their perspective. The Hasidic see Creation as speaking to us about God. We see this in Sefer Yetzirah, which goes back to Abraham and Adam. Sefer Yetzirah answers the question “What exists before form and void?” by saying: not nothing, but the hidden structure of creation itself. It treats the pre‑Genesis state as ordered potential, not chaos. Before the void, there is the blueprint.

You claim I say this, and I say that, but I say NOTHING AT ALL. I just repeat what I hear from others. So take it up with them not me. Don't shoot the messenger. Clearly you do not need me to be a part of the equation. You are able to study and learn all of this yourself. The Bible says the Holy Spirit is to be our teacher, not man. As I am sure the Holy Spirit is guiding you and leading you into all truth.

John Bauer · 2026-02-08T06:50:54-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
Y'know, if all it takes to be a 'fundie' is to adhere to the 5 original essentials, then I suppose I'm very nearly a 'fundie' too.

It's strange how it works out like that in the wash.

He was right about one thing: There were basically five central points that defined fundamentalists in the early 20th century. But he evidently dropped a key doctrinal dispute and split another in order to maintain five in number. He also softened the language a bit.

The five central points were.

the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture,
the full deity of Christ,
the virgin birth,
the substitutionary atonement, and
the bodily resurrection.

The core doctrine missing from his list was 2, the necessary full deity of Christ. Due to such liberal theology as Schleiermacher, and higher criticism, the deity of Christ was being recast in functional, moral, or experiential terms (e.g., Christ as the supreme God-conscious man). The fundamentalists therefore affirmed the deity of Christ in explicit terms as a test of orthodoxy and to maintain the logic of redemption.

The softened language pertains to 1 and 4. True, Scripture is without error (inerrancy), but it is also God-breathed (inspiration), the product of the Spirit’s superintendence, so that the words of Scripture are God’s words. And he said the death of Jesus “paid for sin,” which is ambiguous; the fundamentalists asserted and defended a substitutionary atonement against liberal drifts (often explicitly penal).

John Bauer · 2026-02-08T07:20:40-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
I am 500 years into the future. Then everyone will see what I see now.

Sure, bud.

Firstlightdawn said:
It is really no big deal, compared to someone like Ezekiel who was 3,000 years ahead of his time and gave us incredible detail of the house or throne of God.

What Ezekiel shared was divine revelation. Is that what you’re sharing? Are you claiming it as divine revelation?

If not, then the comparison falls apart.

Firstlightdawn said:
Of course, we have checks and balances and ways to confirm what is real.

Yes, and that is called textual exegesis.

Firstlightdawn said:
Also, I love Hasidim and their perspective. The Hasidic see creation as speaking to us about God. We see this in Sefer Yetzirah, which goes back to Abraham and Adam.

Appealing to Sefer Yetzirah does not answer the exegetical question being asked. It represents a shift of authority from the biblical text to later mystical proto-Kabbalistic speculation, a shift that is methodologically irrelevant. Genesis must be interpreted on its own textual and canonical terms.

The issue, restated plainly, is the grammatical referent of “formless and void” in Genesis 1:2, which is “the earth.” That means its material existence is presupposed, as you later argued yourself, and that means this does not describe material origin, contrary to your original claim.

Note: The idea that Sefer Yetzirah “goes back to Abraham” is speculative fiction.

Firstlightdawn said:
Sefer Yetzirah … treats the pre‑Genesis state as ordered potential, not chaos. Before the void, there is the blueprint.

So does a supralapsarian reading of Scripture, making appeals to esoteric mysticism superfluous.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-08T07:39:45-0600

John Bauer said:
He was right about one thing: There were basically five central points that defined fundamentalists in the early 20th century. But he evidently dropped a key doctrinal dispute and split another in order to maintain five in number. He also softened the language a bit.

The five central points were.

the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture,

the full deity of Christ,

the virgin birth,

the substitutionary atonement, and

the bodily resurrection.

The core doctrine missing from his list was 2, the necessary full deity of Christ. Due to such liberal theology as Schleiermacher, and higher criticism, the deity of Christ was being recast in functional, moral, or experiential terms (e.g., Christ as the supreme God-conscious man). The fundamentalists therefore affirmed the deity of Christ in explicit terms as a test of orthodoxy and to maintain the logic of redemption.

The softened language pertains to 1 and 4. True, Scripture is without error (inerrancy), but it is also God-breathed (inspiration), the product of the Spirit’s superintendence, so that the words of Scripture are God’s words. And he said the death of Jesus “paid for sin,” which is ambiguous; the fundamentalists asserted and defended a substitutionary atonement against liberal drifts (often explicitly penal).

I guess I don't qualify as true-fundie then because I'm an eclectic Realist and I put Critical Philosophy before Faith, doing so without apology and holding the Bible under the scope of Critical Study where it has to earn its place in my mind and heart.

Still......I'm not inclined to go the way of Schleiermacher or Brunner; I'm somewhere floating in-between epistemologically and evidentially, remaining as an equal opportunity applier of Critical Thinking wherever and to whomever seeks to get into my face and tell me I'm wrong, which includes not only Christians, but non-Christians, ex-Christians and anti-christians.

However, if we feel we need to reduce faith down to some 5 principles then mine would be:

1) The 1st Century messengers of the Church of Christ are inspired and carry authority

2) The Full Deity and Humanity of Jesus Christ

3) Affirmation of the Virgin Birth

4) The Substitutionary Atonement

5) The Bodily Resurrection

Of course, unlike those in specific Trintarian denominations, I don't require anyone else to mirror my 5 points in order to have fellowship with them. Their subscription to Traditional Trinitarianism will suffice.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-08T08:17:37-0600

John Bauer said:
Is that what you’re sharing?

I am in the ballpark, but Ezekial was pitching the ball.

John Bauer said:
Note: The idea that Sefer Yetzirah “goes back to Abraham” is speculative fiction.

You need to stick to the facts and quit using your imagination. It means "oral tradition". Do you need me to define that for you. What I will do is define the term you are seeking to understand from their perspective. So you can take that for whatever you think it is worth. I already explained this but we can go over it again if you want. Remember, I am mekurav min ha‑umot. so I would appreciate it if you would show a Planck unit of respect and quit insulting me.

You do know that AI reads everything everywhere and talks about what everyone says about the subject. It can do in a instant what would take me a very long time to research and do. If I could even do the math myself.

Hasidic teachers would say:

Energy is already something measurable
Measurement requires space and time
Space and time do not exist before creation

That is why I say the Planck unit of time and distance IS the beginning. Then you get into what it means to be an observer. There is one person and one book that talks about what I am saying. We talk about every book in the world and now we are talking about ONLY one book.

Brian Greene

Greene describes the Planck epoch as the moment when:

geometry crystallizes
the laws of physics “switch on”
the universe becomes describable

Hasidic teaching and Sefer Yetzirah–style cosmology both treat “formless and void” — tohu va‑vohu — as absolutely real, but not as physical chaos. They see it as the primordial condition of creation, the raw, undifferentiated potential that God shapes into an ordered world.

This is one of the places where Hasidic thought and the older mystical tradition line up almost perfectly.

Hasidic understanding of tohu va‑vohu

Hasidic teachers say tohu and vohu are two stages of unformed existence before God imposes structure.

Tohu — limitless, overwhelming divine energy with no vessels to contain it
Vohu — the first trace of structure, but still empty, unable to hold form

They describe it as:

raw divine intensity
infinite potential without boundaries
light too strong for any container

Creation begins when God contracts, measures, and shapes this raw potential into a world that can sustain life.

Why this matters in Hasidic thought

Tohu is not “chaos.” It is unbounded power. Vohu is not “emptiness.” It is the first hint of form.

The Hasidic masters say the world still contains both forces:

tohu = explosive, unchanneled desire
vohu = the empty places waiting for meaning

Spiritual life is learning to channel tohu into vessels that can hold it.

Sefer Yetzirah and the mystical tradition

Sefer Yetzirah doesn’t use the phrase tohu va‑vohu directly, but it describes the same reality in its own language:

Ayin — nothingness
Tohu — unformed potential
Hevel — breath, vapor
Ruach Elohim — the divine wind that begins shaping

In this framework:

Before creation, there is no space, no time, no matter
God creates boundaries (sefirot, directions, measures)
These boundaries allow form to emerge from the unformed

This is the mystical equivalent of Genesis 1:2.

The key idea in Sefer Yetzirah

Creation is not God building something out of pre‑existing stuff. Creation is God carving order out of nothing, using:

numbers
letters
boundaries
directions
measures

Tohu va‑vohu is the pre‑boundary state.

How Hasidic thought merges with Sefer Yetzirah

Hasidic teachers take the mystical structure and apply it to the human soul:

Every person has tohu — raw, overwhelming drives
Every person has vohu — empty places waiting for purpose
God gives Torah as the structure that shapes both
Spiritual growth is the process of bringing form out of formlessness

This is why Hasidic thought says:

“Creation happens every moment.”

Because the same pattern repeats inside you.

The unified meaning

Tohu va‑vohu = the unbounded potential that God shapes into ordered reality.

Hasidic = psychological and spiritual
Sefer Yetzirah = cosmological and metaphysical
Genesis = narrative and theological

All three describe the same template:

Before God forms the world, there is potential without structure. After God speaks, boundaries appear, and creation becomes possible.

If you want, we can go deeper into the Hebrew letters of tohu and vohu, or how the Baal Shem Tov, the Tanya, or the Sfas Emes each interpret the phrase.

Job 33:6 · 2026-02-08T08:27:09-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
I am in the ballpark, but Ezekial was pitching the ball.

You need to stick to the facts and quit using your imagination. It means "oral tradition". Do you need me to define that for you. What I will do is define the term you are seeking to understand from their perspective. So you can take that for whatever you think it is worth. I already explained this but we can go over it again if you want. Remember, I am mekurav min ha‑umot. so I would appreciate it if you would show a Planck unit of respect and quit insulting me.

You do know that AI reads everything everywhere and talks about what everyone says about the subject. It can do in a instant what would take me a very long time to research and do. If I could even do the math myself.

Hasidic teachers would say:

Energy is already something measurable

Measurement requires space and time

Space and time do not exist before creation

That is why I say the Planck unit of time and distance IS the beginning. Then you get into what it means to be an observer. There is one person and one book that talks about what I am saying. We talk about every book in the world and now we are talking about ONLY one book.

Brian Greene
Greene describes the Planck epoch as the moment when:

geometry crystallizes

the laws of physics “switch on”

the universe becomes describable

Hasidic teaching and Sefer Yetzirah–style cosmology both treat “formless and void” — tohu va‑vohu — as absolutely real, but not as physical chaos. They see it as the primordial condition of creation, the raw, undifferentiated potential that God shapes into an ordered world.

This is one of the places where Hasidic thought and the older mystical tradition line up almost perfectly.

Hasidic understanding of tohu va‑vohu
Hasidic teachers say tohu and vohu are two stages of unformed existence before God imposes structure.

Tohu — limitless, overwhelming divine energy with no vessels to contain it

Vohu — the first trace of structure, but still empty, unable to hold form

They describe it as:

raw divine intensity

infinite potential without boundaries

light too strong for any container

Creation begins when God contracts, measures, and shapes this raw potential into a world that can sustain life.

Why this matters in Hasidic thought
Tohu is not “chaos.” It is unbounded power. Vohu is not “emptiness.” It is the first hint of form.

The Hasidic masters say the world still contains both forces:

tohu = explosive, unchanneled desire

vohu = the empty places waiting for meaning

Spiritual life is learning to channel tohu into vessels that can hold it.

Sefer Yetzirah and the mystical tradition
Sefer Yetzirah doesn’t use the phrase tohu va‑vohu directly, but it describes the same reality in its own language:

Ayin — nothingness

Tohu — unformed potential

Hevel — breath, vapor

Ruach Elohim — the divine wind that begins shaping

In this framework:

Before creation, there is no space, no time, no matter

God creates boundaries (sefirot, directions, measures)

These boundaries allow form to emerge from the unformed

This is the mystical equivalent of Genesis 1:2.

The key idea in Sefer Yetzirah
Creation is not God building something out of pre‑existing stuff. Creation is God carving order out of nothing, using:

numbers

letters

boundaries

directions

measures

Tohu va‑vohu is the pre‑boundary state.

How Hasidic thought merges with Sefer Yetzirah
Hasidic teachers take the mystical structure and apply it to the human soul:

Every person has tohu — raw, overwhelming drives

Every person has vohu — empty places waiting for purpose

God gives Torah as the structure that shapes both

Spiritual growth is the process of bringing form out of formlessness

This is why Hasidic thought says:

Because the same pattern repeats inside you.

The unified meaning
Tohu va‑vohu = the unbounded potential that God shapes into ordered reality.

Hasidic = psychological and spiritual

Sefer Yetzirah = cosmological and metaphysical

Genesis = narrative and theological

All three describe the same template:

Before God forms the world, there is potential without structure. After God speaks, boundaries appear, and creation becomes possible.

If you want, we can go deeper into the Hebrew letters of tohu and vohu, or how the Baal Shem Tov, the Tanya, or the Sfas Emes each interpret the phrase.

But we can't say that God is carving order out of nothing because the text explicitly tells us that the earth and objects of creation, were already present. I noted this in my last post. As an example, when God created the earth on day 3, the waters were gathered and thus it was revealed. The earth being formless does not mean that the earth isn't there, just as elsewhere in scripture, such as in Isaiah, the land that is tohu does not mean that the land is not physically already present.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-08T08:42:31-0600

Job 33:6 said:
But we can't say that God is carving order out of nothing because the text explicitly tells us that the earth and objects of creation, were already present.

This was before there was light. On the first day, God created day and night. This a template or a pattern that all others days. There can only be one day and all days after that are a copy of the original. Jesus was a carpenter and as a carpenter we know what a pattern is.

Job 33:6 · 2026-02-08T08:49:52-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
This was before there was light. On the first day, God created day and night. This a template or a pattern that all others days. There can only be one day and all days after that are a copy of the original. Jesus was a carpenter and as a carpenter we know what a pattern is.

You mentioned this idea of God carving order out of nothing. I'm just pointing out that the text doesn't describe anything like carving, nor is it out of nothing. What we see when we read the text is that the earth is already there. It's already carved as well. And when God creates the earth on Day 3, the text doesn't say anything about carving, rather the earth is revealed by the gathering of the waters.

NBB · 2026-02-08T09:49:32-0600

The Barbarian said:
People who accept evolution also accept that God created the universe. The difference is that "evolutionists" also accept the way He did it.

if God created animals he designed the way he wanted, so its not evolution anymore

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?

Well-Known Member

What tohu va‑bohu actually describes​

Why this indicates material origin​

How the next verses confirm this​

The simplest, board‑safe explanation​

How the Hebrew grammar makes this clear​

Why this matters for interpretation​

The simplest, board‑safe sentence​

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Reformed

Reformed

Unapologetically Premillennial !!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Reformed

Reformed

Unapologetically Premillennial !!

Active Member

Brian Greene​

Hasidic understanding of tohu va‑vohu​

Why this matters in Hasidic thought​

Sefer Yetzirah and the mystical tradition​

The key idea in Sefer Yetzirah​

How Hasidic thought merges with Sefer Yetzirah​

The unified meaning​

Well-Known Member

Brian Greene​

Hasidic understanding of tohu va‑vohu​

Why this matters in Hasidic thought​

Sefer Yetzirah and the mystical tradition​

The key idea in Sefer Yetzirah​

How Hasidic thought merges with Sefer Yetzirah​

The unified meaning​

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

What tohu va‑bohu actually describes

Why this indicates material origin

How the next verses confirm this

The simplest, board‑safe explanation

How the Hebrew grammar makes this clear

Why this matters for interpretation

The simplest, board‑safe sentence

Brian Greene

Hasidic understanding of tohu va‑vohu

Why this matters in Hasidic thought

Sefer Yetzirah and the mystical tradition

The key idea in Sefer Yetzirah

How Hasidic thought merges with Sefer Yetzirah

The unified meaning

Brian Greene

Hasidic understanding of tohu va‑vohu

Why this matters in Hasidic thought

Sefer Yetzirah and the mystical tradition

The key idea in Sefer Yetzirah

How Hasidic thought merges with Sefer Yetzirah

The unified meaning