6,000 Years?

[Jerry N.]

I took that idea from Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1 etc.

Ultimately, it's when God created, so it's the beginning of God creating. But the question is, the Hebrew word "Bara", what does it really mean?

The opposite of tohu wa bohu might suggest that creation involves establishing purpose. That might be the more accurate understanding of the Hebrew bara, or create. To make or to do. Such as when God creates a clean heart for the psalmist. Not materially, but for a purpose. Psalm 51:10.

I guess I’m confused. If it is the beginning of God creating, does it mean He did create before? Your research is good, but maybe I’m getting old and miss something. This is a different time zone, for don’t be surprised if I don’t answer till tomorrow here. Some clarification is needed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's no different than the flat-earthers here who post YT videos with little to no comment. In both cases the mentality seems to be, it's on YouTube so it must be true.

Well......................................................................maybe. But there's a lot more to "what's going on" with each individual than simply that they think what they think. There's also the psychology of the 'how' and 'why' with each person we engage that you and I, however educated we may be, also, and however fortunately or unfortunately, need to keep in mind.

 

[Job 33:6]

I guess I’m confused. If it is the beginning of God creating, does it mean He did create before? Your research is good, but maybe I’m getting old and miss something. This is a different time zone, for don’t be surprised if I don’t answer till tomorrow here. Some clarification is needed.

In the historical isrealite context, creation accounts were not ex nihilo in nature. Ex nihilo creation or philosophical perspectives didn't arise until the later Greco roman world. Prior to that, specifically in the ancient near east, creation accounts were more ex materia or functional in nature.

 

[Platte]

It's not placing time between verse 1 and 2. It's considering time before verse 1.

When I began to make a pizza, the pizza was formless. But how long was it formless before I began to make it?

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

I’m not sure what issue you have.

In the beginning God created the earth and it was void. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t have been void when it was created?

 

[River Jordan]

Well......................................................................maybe. But there's a lot more to "what's going on" with each individual than simply that they think what they think. There's also the psychology of the 'how' and 'why' with each person we engage that you and I, however educated we may be, also, and however fortunately or unfortunately, need to keep in mind.

Of course.

 

[Job 33:6]

I’m not sure what issue you have.

In the beginning God created the earth and it was void. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t have been void when it was created?

My issue is that YECs ignore basic grammar:

When I began to make a pizza, the pizza was formless. But how long was it formless before I began to make it?

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The text doesn't say.

God wouldn't bother to create something if it was not first formless. Just as a person wouldn't bother to make a pizza if it was already made and was not first formless and doughy.

If the pizza was already made, then there would be nothing to create. Just like if a painting were already painted, there would be no work of art to create.

And so God takes something that is formless, and God creates it into something that is very good, and God does this in 6 days.

The creation doesn't happen in verse 1:1 in 1 day. It happens across the 6 days of Genesis in 6 days. God creates the earth on day 3 for example:
Genesis 1:9-10 ESV
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

But as we can see. The earth was already there. It just needed to be revealed by the gathering of waters that were covering it.

 

[Jerry N.]

In the historical isrealite context, creation accounts were not ex nihilo in nature. Ex nihilo creation or philosophical perspectives didn't arise until the later Greco roman world. Prior to that, specifically in the ancient near east, creation accounts were more ex materia or functional in nature.

I see. I guess I was trying to read more into you post than you meant.

 

[Platte]

My issue is that YECs ignore basic grammar:

When I began to make a pizza, the pizza was formless. But how long was it formless before I began to make it?

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The text doesn't say.

God wouldn't bother to create something if it was not first formless. Just as a person wouldn't bother to make a pizza if it was already made and was not first formless and doughy.

If the pizza was already made, then there would be nothing to create. Just like if a painting were already painted, there would be no work of art to create.

And so God takes something that is formless, and God creates it into something that is very good, and God does this in 6 days.

The creation doesn't happen in verse 1:1 in 1 day. It happens across the 6 days of Genesis in 6 days. God creates the earth on day 3 for example:
Genesis 1:9-10 ESV
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

But as we can see. The earth was already there. It just needed to be revealed by the gathering of waters that were covering it.

In the beginning God created the earth and it was void. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t have been void when it was created?

 

[Jerry N.]

In the beginning God created the earth and it was void. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t have been void when it was created?

I think the point he is making is that וָבֹ֔הוּ or bohu has two meanings, and the second one is in Gen. 1:2:

1. a vacuity

2. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin (Strong’s Hebrew).

When you have the ingredients, it is not a pizza yet.

This is probably not what Job is saying, but here is my limited input: The stuff of the universe was made in Genesis 1:1 and not in Genesis 1:2. The earth (pizza) wasn’t created until the material was gathered from wherever it was and formed into the earth and placed in its place in Genesis 1:2.

I don’t know if I agree, but it makes sense.

 

[Platte]

I think the point he is making is that וָבֹ֔הוּ or bohu has two meanings, and the second one is in Gen. 1:2:

1. a vacuity

2. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin (Strong’s Hebrew).

When you have the ingredients, it is not a pizza yet.

This is probably not what Job is saying, but here is my limited input: The stuff of the universe was made in Genesis 1:1 and not in Genesis 1:2. The earth (pizza) wasn’t created until the material was gathered from wherever it was and formed into the earth and placed in its place in Genesis 1:2.

I don’t know if I agree, but it makes sense.

Again. Are you saying you have an issue and if so what, with the Earth being created void (of life)?

 

[Job 33:6]

Y

In the beginning God created the earth and it was void. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t have been void when it was created?

In the beginning when God created the earth, it was void,

Or: in the beginning when God created the earth and it was void,

Is an introductory statement and dependent clause.

It's like saying:
In the beginning when Platte drove his car to work, it was raining outside...

So when you ask the question "are you suggesting it shouldn't have been void when it was created",

That's like asking:

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been raining when Platte was driving.

It shouldn't be formless after God is finished creating, that wouldn't make any sense. But before God begins creating, it's perfect reasonable to anticipate it to be formless. Because God hadn't created it yet.

The fact that the earth is formless is why it needed to be created. To give it form (days 1-3). Just as the earth being empty is why it needed to be filled with birds and fish and people (days 4-6).

Could you imagine, the earth is already formed (not tohu) and animals are already fruitful and multiplying (not bohu), and then God says "oh no, it's not tohu or bohu, what is there left to do in the 6 days?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think the point he is making is that וָבֹ֔הוּ or bohu has two meanings, and the second one is in Gen. 1:2:

1. a vacuity

2. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin (Strong’s Hebrew).

When you have the ingredients, it is not a pizza yet.

This is probably not what Job is saying, but here is my limited input: The stuff of the universe was made in Genesis 1:1 and not in Genesis 1:2. The earth (pizza) wasn’t created until the material was gathered from wherever it was and formed into the earth and placed in its place in Genesis 1:2.

I don’t know if I agree, but it makes sense.

That's not my personal position.

I would say, the earth was formless before God created it. Or when God began to create it, it was [already] formless.

Just as pizza can be formless before it is made.

In the beginning when God made the pizza, the pizza was formless.

Just as, on Wednesday, in the beginning when I made pizza, I pulled it out of the refrigerator while it was still formless, it was formless, and put it in the oven. And after 6 days, it was formed. I took it out of the oven, ate it, and it was good.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Or consider this option:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

When God began, the earth was...

Creation isn't complete until the 6th day.

In the beginning [in which] God created, the earth was (past tense, already) formless, is another way to translate this.

Or, imagine this.

In the beginning when God created Adam, Adam was formless [dust] and then God said "let me breathe into his nostrils and give him life". And in 6 seconds God did so, and by the end of the 6th second, God was finished the work He had done, and it was very good.

Adam is there the whole time. He just hadn't been made yet. He was formless.

The easiest translations are the CEB, the JPS, and the NRSVue, "When God began to create, the earth was".

When I began to drive to work, it was raining outside.

You see, The text doesn't say how long it was raining before I began to drive to work, just as the text doesn't say how long the Earth was formless before God began to create it. Rather the earth was formless and it was raining when I began. Or in the beginning.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The NABRE and NRSV are a couple additional options that use "when" to denote the construct form translation.

The BHS is also good, it is in Hebrew, based on the masoritic tradition of scripture. It uses the dependent clause, when God began.

 

[Jerry N.]

That's not my personal position.

I would say, the earth was formless before God created it. Or when God began to create it, it was [already] formless.

Just as pizza can be formless before it is made.

In the beginning when God made the pizza, the pizza was formless.

Just as, on Wednesday, in the beginning when I made pizza, I pulled it out of the refrigerator while it was still formless, it was formless, and put it in the oven. And after 6 days, it was formed. I took it out of the oven, ate it, and it was good.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Or consider this option:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

When God began, the earth was...

Creation isn't complete until the 6th day.

In the beginning [in which] God created, the earth was (past tense, already) formless, is another way to translate this.

Or, imagine this.

In the beginning when God created Adam, Adam was formless [dust] and then God said "let me breathe into his nostrils and give him life". And in 6 seconds God did so, and by the end of the 6th second, God was finished the work He had done, and it was very good.

Adam is there the whole time. He just hadn't been made yet. He was formless.

The easiest translations are the CEB, the JPS, and the NRSVue, "When God began to create, the earth was".

When I began to drive to work, it was raining outside.

You see, The text doesn't say how long it was raining before I began to drive to work, just as the text doesn't say how long the Earth was formless before God began to create it. Rather the earth was formless and it was raining when I began. Or in the beginning.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The NABRE and NRSV are a couple additional options that use "when" to denote the construct form translation.

The BHS is also good, it is in Hebrew, based on the masoritic tradition of scripture. It uses the dependent clause, when God began.

I don't see how that is different from what I wrote. The ingredients were created before Genesis 1:2. Are you saying the ingredients were created before Genesis 1:1? Either way, I don't see a problem. I don't "have an issue" with either case, I am just trying to understand the nuance of the discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't see how that is different from what I wrote. The ingredients were created before Genesis 1:2. Are you saying the ingredients were created before Genesis 1:1? Either way, I don't see a problem. I don't "have an issue" with either case, I am just trying to understand the nuance of the discussion.

Oh I see. Yes. Sorry I just misread that.

Sometimes ancient Israelite cosmology and context are confused with gap theory. But one is saying that creation occurred using pre existing materials, whereas the other is saying that God created the earth (verse 1) ex nihilo, and then verse 2 was a result of that.

Then you have some culprits (I won't name names) that sometimes seem to intentionally confuse the two.

In the first view, the dependent clause literary introduction, Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are a single sentence. When God created, and the earth was. While in a gap theory view, they are distinct. In the beginning God created.(Period) [Then] The earth was...

It seems simple. But just switching a period to a comma and adding a conjunction actually completely reframes the introduction. And in Hebrew, this is actually a legitimate and traditional approach to the text that many (many evangelicals at least) aren't aware of.

Another good example is with Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:4-7 NIV
[4] This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. [5] Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, [6] but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. [7] Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.



In the beginning, the account of the heavens and the earth when God made them...the land was formless and empty, no shrubs, no people to work the land....then God said, let there be man.

Verse 1:1 matches 1:4. Verse 1:2 matches 5:5-6, and verse 1:3 matches 5:7.

But in chapter 2 it's easier to distinguish verse 4 as a dependent clause, as part of the literary introduction. It's not confused with an event or independent sentence, as it is in chapter 1 in some translations.

 

[Job 33:6]

And this is actually one of the handful of evidences for the dependent clause translations:

In ancient near east extrabiblical texts, you'll find these 3-step introductions. You find it in Enuma Elish for example. And in Kar 4.

They begin with an introduction. They continue with a description of background conditions that exist during the introduction. And God begins creating in verse 3. Not in verse 1. God speaks in verse 3. Not in verse 1.

In English, it's sometimes easier to understand if it is worded this way:

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Intro, background dependent clause, then God speaks.

The KJV and ESV are not inaccurate. They do accurately translate the Hebrew. But they assume an independent clause translation and definite article. But in fact, in the original Hebrew, these details are not present and are assumed. There is no Hebrew definite article "the" in Genesis 1:1 in the oldest texts that we have. It's a translation assumption. In Hebrew, it basically says "in beginning of God created". So when translators look at that, they try their best to shape that into English, and it comes out in a variety of ways.

And this makes literalists and KJV only-ists uncomfortable. But that is the truth. And anyone who inspects the Hebrew behind the English translations knows this. And that's why we have 5+ different English translations of Genesis 1:1-3.

 

[Job 33:6]

And here is a good video that explains this topic well by Hebrew old testament scholar Michael Heiser:

The topic is covered in the first 20-30 minutes or so.

 

[Platte]

Y

In the beginning when God created the earth, it was void,

Or: in the beginning when God created the earth and it was void,

Is an introductory statement and dependent clause.

It's like saying:
In the beginning when Platte drove his car to work, it was raining outside...

So when you ask the question "are you suggesting it shouldn't have been void when it was created",

That's like asking:

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been raining when Platte was driving.

It shouldn't be formless after God is finished creating, that wouldn't make any sense. But before God begins creating, it's perfect reasonable to anticipate it to be formless. Because God hadn't created it yet.

The fact that the earth is formless is why it needed to be created. To give it form (days 1-3). Just as the earth being empty is why it needed to be filled with birds and fish and people (days 4-6).

Could you imagine, the earth is already formed (not tohu) and animals are already fruitful and multiplying (not bohu), and then God says "oh no, it's not tohu or bohu, what is there left to do in the 6 days?

Again - are you suggesting that the earth wasn't or couldnt be created void (of life)?

Sounds like you are saying the earth could be created void - just not without form?

Please clarify?

 

[Jerry N.]

Oh I see. Yes. Sorry I just misread that.

Sometimes ancient Israelite cosmology and context are confused with gap theory. But one is saying that creation occurred using pre existing materials, whereas the other is saying that God created the earth (verse 1) ex nihilo, and then verse 2 was a result of that.

Then you have some culprits (I won't name names) that sometimes seem to intentionally confuse the two.

In the first view, the dependent clause literary introduction, Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are a single sentence. When God created, and the earth was. While in a gap theory view, they are distinct. In the beginning God created.(Period) [Then] The earth was...

It seems simple. But just switching a period to a comma and adding a conjunction actually completely reframes the introduction. And in Hebrew, this is actually a legitimate and traditional approach to the text that many (many evangelicals at least) aren't aware of.

Another good example is with Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:4-7 NIV
[4] This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. [5] Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, [6] but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. [7] Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.



In the beginning, the account of the heavens and the earth when God made them...the land was formless and empty, no shrubs, no people to work the land....then God said, let there be man.

Verse 1:1 matches 1:4. Verse 1:2 matches 5:5-6, and verse 1:3 matches 5:7.

But in chapter 2 it's easier to distinguish verse 4 as a dependent clause, as part of the literary introduction. It's not confused with an event or independent sentence, as it is in chapter 1 in some translations.

I see. It is a bit of a problem that the Hebrew didn’t have punctuation. It works, but it obviously leaves room for interpretation on the part of translators.

 

[Job 33:6]

Again - are you suggesting that the earth wasn't or couldnt be created void (of life)?

What do you mean by this question? When you say "created", are you referring to ex nihilo or ex materia?

The construct view implies that God did not initially create the earth as formless and void (tohu vavohu), but rather that:

When He began to create, the earth already was formless, dark, and watery.

The condition of “formless and void” is the starting point of the creative work, not the product of it.

God can do anything. But it's a question of how the text is understood.

Technically the answer would probably be, yes, the earth was not created void. Rather it was void first and God then created it.

Isaiah 45:18 NRSVUE
[18] For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos; he formed it to be inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no other.

He did not create it formless. He created it to be, or so that it would be, formed.

Isaiah 45:18 ESV
[18] For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other.

He did not create it tohu va bohu. He created it so that it would be formed and filled.

 

[Jerry N.]

And here is a good video that explains this topic well by Hebrew old testament scholar Michael Heiser:

The topic is covered in the first 20-30 minutes or so.

I only watched the first 40 minutes or so, but it makes sense. It makes things clearer.