Exegeting Genesis 1:1-2

[Calminian]

This may be way too technical a post, but if you like delving into deep waters, you may find this an intriguing topic. (yeah, there's a bit of a pun in there) You'll either love this topic, or it will cause your eyes to roll back as you pass out.

Gen. 1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (NKJV)

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (NIV)

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (NASB)

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth — 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, (Young's)

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. (New Living)​

This still remains the passage of Genesis that sparks the most intrigue with me. The second verse in particular intrigues me. I've listed 5 translations above.

I'm drawn to the contrast between Young's and the New Living Translation (which is definitely a paraphrase). I think the NLT adds something to the text that's not there. It adds "its surface" implying 'earth's surface'. Notice none of the others say this. Instead of "its surface", they all say the Spirit of God was hovering over "the water." There's no indication of possession, let alone possession of earth. There's no indication this is speaking about the surface of the earth per se. Perhaps at this point you can see where I'm going with this.

Feel free to respond at this point before I go into even deeper waters.

__________________________________________________________________

I'll continue for those who want to follow me even further.

I can understand the inference of the NLT paraphrasers, especially considering the nomenclature of our day. Today, we view the oceans as earth's waters. But in the Bible, according to the nomenclature of its writers, earth was earth, and the seas were the seas. They were separate and distinct. Erets is "dry land" in scripture.

"And God called the dry land earth"​

— not 'planet earth' and not a 'land/sea unit' as many of the ancient cosmologists viewed it, being a flat disc of land and ocean. They are always spoken of distinctly in scripture. Genesis and the rest of the books of scripture explicitly define earth (erets) as the name of the dry ground. And the gathered waters are called the sea, and from then on, they are always spoken of as distinct components of the world.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them....” (Ex. 20:11)​

See all these verses as well (Neh. 9:6, Psa. 69:34, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 135:6, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Amos 9:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1).

The key to understanding any particular term in scripture is usage. It would be a mistake of me to look to some ancient nomenclature, and just as wrong to look to modern nomenclature, when the usage of the term is explicit in scripture.

So back to the text. What is Gen. 1:1-2 saying?

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth — 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, (Young's)​

If I were to paraphrase this, it seems to read most straightforwardly,

Genesis one, 1) In the Beginning God made the heavens and the land. 2) And here's how that happened. The land was initially non-existent. It had no form, no contents, no light. There were initially only a massive amount of formless fluids which God's Spirit overlooked. ​

The the above isn't scripture, just my paraphrase put together from the most information I was able to gather up until this time. But I do want to note a couple of things that go into my thinking. The earth of Genesis isn't named and defined until verses 9-10 and the sea of Genesis isn't defined and named until verses 9-10. Yes the term earth (erets) appears in verse 1, but this seems to be a summary reflective statement immediately explained by the preceding verses. It would be akin to saying,

Once upon a time the airplane was created. Now prior to early autumn of 1900 at Kitty Hawk, the airplane was merely a concept in the Wright brothers' minds—along with some unassembled material.​

You catch my drift? In the same way, verse 2 seems to be explaining the pre-made earth, speaking of its components prior to assembly. It says the earth was formless and void and that darkness was on the face of some waters that presumably God also created and would use to make the land and the sea, and perhaps even some heavenly bodies.

Would seem to me, God is explaining the creation of the land by going back to its primordial state, which was merely formless shapeless fluids. I was also interested to find that "water" (mayim) in scripture has a much broader usage than the english translation, even being used to describe urine. This is why I'm thinking "fluids" may be an even more precise translation for the english speaking mind.

Now keep in mind, lest someone accuse me of pushing a YEC slant onto this text, the above not only is in conflict with TE pushed ancient cosmology theories, but also with many young earth science theories. Henry Morris (one of my heroes) suggested these waters of Genesis 1:2 were ocean waters lifted up to a vapor canopy which bursted during the flood. I would gravitate away from this exegesis. (I'm not saying a pre-flood vapor canopy didn't exist, I'm merely saying Genesis 1:2 can't be applied to it). Other YEC's like Russell Humphreys have moved away from that exegesis. Answers in Genesis also has a few articles explaining problems with this theory.

Feedback: The Collapse of the Canopy Model

It's even listed in their article Arguments Creationists should not use.

But regardless of which YECs agree with me and which don't my purpose is to be educated by the text first, regardless of where it takes me. To do this, I want to draw from the text first, and make deduction from it.

If you're still with me at this point (which is a big if) and if my above reasoning is sound, then verse 6 which talks about the separation of these fluids is not talking about the division of the ocean. The ocean also has not been born yet. Rather, verse 6 is speaking of a division of the primordial fluids God used to form the world.

And to be even more precise, God only used a portion of these fluids to make the land and sea. The rest was separated by an expanse—the same expanse which would contain the stars. This would seem to preclude an atmospheric vapor canopy.

If you're still awake, couple other things to note:

Peter chimes in thousands of years later and makes this statement.

2Pet. 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.​

Out of water (meaning a portion of the original waters) and by water (formed from waters). Seems Peter had Genesis 1 in mind.

A Psalmist also speaks thousands of years later with this revelation.

Psa. 148:4 Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens! ​

He also seems to have Genesis 1:2,6 in mind and implies the waters (primordial fluids) are still up there somewhere, being that scripture has not revealed their fate.

One other quick preemptive note. Some one may mention the term "formless and void" in Jer. 4:23 and try to apply that to Genesis 1:2. I think this would be a mistake. I think Genesis 1:2 served as good hyperbole to describe a very thorough destruction spoken of in Jer. 4:23. But it's certainly not an exact parallel as mountains existed at that time and clearly the earth was not reduced to a fluid.

Kodos to anyone who read this entire post. Hello? (crickets)

In summary:

The waters of Genesis 1:2 are not the planet earth's oceans.

The waters of Genesis 1:2 are not the initial earth, but merely initial materials that were used to form the land and other things.

The separation of verse 6 is not speaking of ocean waters lifted up in the atmosphere.

The waters of Genesis 1:2,6 are not necessarily H2O at all, but rather primordial fluids of some kind.

The earth according to Genesis 1 was not formed until verse 9, after the initial fluids are mentioned

The sea according to Genesis 1 was not formed until verese 9, after the initial fluids are mentioned.

And finally Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement, followed by precise details of that event.

Looking forward to (and hoping for) feedback.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, since you seem interested in a technical discussion of Genesis 1:1,2 I have a few resources I have often used. I'm very found of the Blue Letter Bible Lexicon. I went ahead and linked some of the more important terms:

• Genesis 1:1 In the beginning Strong's H7225 - re'shiyth
• God Strong's H430 - 'elohiym
• created Strong's H1254 - bara'

This word, 'bara' is vital to understanding the creation account, used only three times in Genesis 1, it's used only of God (Gen. 1:1, 21, 27).

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa. 45:18: "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara] the heavens; God himself that formed [yasar] the earth and made [asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara] it not in vain, he formed [yasar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. Especially striking is the use of bara in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God's past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh (God's literal name) is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: "I have made [asah] the earth, and created [bara] man upon it: I, even, my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded" (Isa. 45:12). Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory. (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Vine, Unger, White)​

In the same way, verse 2 seems to be explaining the pre-made earth, speaking of its components prior to assembly. It says the earth was formless and void and that darkness was on the face of some waters that presumably God also created and would use to make the land and the sea, and perhaps even some heavenly bodies.

That's what I get from the text, the Universe (cosmos) and the earth were already made in Genesis 1:1, in Genesis 1:2 the transformation of the face of the earth begins, preparing it to be inhabited.

Would seem to me, God is explaining the creation of the land by going back to its primordial state, which was merely formless shapeless fluids. I was also interested to find that "water" (mayim) in scripture has a much broader usage than the english translation, even being used to describe urine. This is why I'm thinking "fluids" may be an even more precise translation for the english speaking mind.

Strong's H4325 - mayim מַיִם

1) water, waters

a) water
b) water of the feet, urine
c) of danger, violence, transitory things, refreshment​

But regardless of which YECs agree with me and which don't my purpose is to be educated by the text first, regardless of where it takes me. To do this, I want to draw from the text first, and make deduction from it.

Agreed.

In summary:

The waters of Genesis 1:2 are not the planet earth's oceans.

No, they are not, they are the waters that covered the earth.

The waters of Genesis 1:2 are not the initial earth, but merely initial materials that were used to form the land and other things.

Yes, waters that covered the face of the earth and clouds that would not let any light in.

The separation of verse 6 is not speaking of ocean waters lifted up in the atmosphere.

I read your exposition, I am not entirely sure I agree with this but it's interesting.

The waters of Genesis 1:2,6 are not necessarily H2O at all, but rather primordial fluids of some kind.

Probably a hydrogen rich (reducing) atmosphere but most likely just plain H20, at least as far as I can tell.

The earth according to Genesis 1 was not formed until verse 9, after the initial fluids are mentioned

Actually the land emerged, by some means the land was separated from the water.

The sea according to Genesis 1 was not formed until verese 9, after the initial fluids are mentioned.

I'm still pondering what kind of fluids they would be if not just plain water. No doubt, their composition changed somewhat.

And finally Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement, followed by precise details of that event.

At one time. I would have agreed with that given the character of the narrative, but I've come to the conclusion it's a singular event.

Looking forward to (and hoping for) feedback.

An interesting exposition, some pretty good cross referencing, an insightful paraphrase and a pretty good discussion of the Canopy Theory. It does fall short of being an exegetical treatment of the text but we can take it to that level if you really want to go there.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[granpa]

the wind "of God":

Relativistic jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relativistic jets are extremely powerful jets[1] of plasma which emerge from presumed massive objects at the centers of some active galaxies, notably radio galaxies and quasars

These jets have Lorentz factors of ~100 (that is, speeds of roughly 0.99995c), making them some of the swiftest celestial objects currently known

Because of the enormous amount of energy needed to launch a relativistic jet, some jets are thought to be powered by spinning black holes

 

[miamited]

hi calminian,

Just wanted to clear up some unanswered questions. Is it your understanding then that the planet stood spinning in space for some eons of time all by itself in the universe? However, through all of this time it was a physical body covered in fluid?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

hi calminian,

Just wanted to clear up some unanswered questions. Is it your understanding then that the planet stood spinning in space for some eons of time all by itself in the universe? However, through all of this time it was a physical body covered in fluid?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

No I don't see that in the text at all. Not sure where you picked that up. I don't see any eons of time in verses 1 & 2 either. I don't see a gap if that's what you mean.

I see Genesis 1:1 as almost a title statement. In the beginning, this general thing happened. Then, the text goes into detail about precisely how it happened over a 6 day period—the detailed creation and naming of the earth, the detailed creation and naming of the heavens.

 

[ptomwebster]

...

Gen. 1:1.... (NKJV)

Gen. .... (NIV)

Gen. 1:1 .... (NASB)

Gen. 1:1 ..., (Young's)

Gen. 1:1 ...(New Living)
​

...quote]


How is your Hebrew, Genesis was written in Paleo Hebrew not English. The earth "became without form, and void;" not "was." God did not create the earth imperfect, He did not create it tôhû , it (hâyâh ) became (tohû vā bohu&#770 without form, and void.

 

[miamited]

Hi Cal,

Ok, thanks. I just felt that your opening statement left open that the earth(the planetary form) may have existed for eons and then one day God stepped into the picture and finished the job. So, I just wanted to be clear. I know that in the past you and I have held to a very similar agreement with the Scriptures in this place.

Six days about 6,000 years ago is my understanding.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Kudos and props, Mark, for sifting through my entire post. I can only assume insomnia played a role. There just seems to be no concise way to tackle this issue. I appreciate you tackling it with me.

That's what I get from the text, the Universe (cosmos) and the earth were already made in Genesis 1:1, in Genesis 1:2 the transformation of the face of the earth begins, preparing it to be inhabited.

We would disagree here. I view Genesis 1:1 as a title verse.

No, they are not, they are the waters that covered the earth.

I had always viewed the primordial earth of Genesis as a water planet. Probably because I had looked at the term "earth" as planet earth. I figured the landmass was underneath the surface of the ocean in verse 2. But the text steered me away from this because it never says anything of this detail. In fact, I'm trying to avoid modern nomenclature which can cause all kinds of interpretation errors. The ancients never used the term erets in the sense of a planet or even a land/sea unit. This is why all flat earth charges against the Bible fail. Earth and sea are always separate in scripture. When the Bible talks about the ends of the earth, it's merely talking about where the land meets the sea.

This is a perfectly acceptable way for the writers to describe the world around them. We also speak of the land and sea as separate in modern times. But "earth" in english is much broader and primarily means planet earth which includes oceans. Erets merely means land. (that's straight from the text). If you look at the usage of erets in the old testament, and its greek counterpart in the new, you'll never see it used to describe the land and sea as a unit. Rather the world is described as 3 units, earth, sea, heaven.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.​

But let's go back to your point about the initial earth already being formed, and covered with the ocean surface. While this is possible, and while many I respect believe this, let me just bring up some textual problems with it.

When speaking of the earth (erets—land) in verse 2, the writer describes it as formless and void. These seem to indicate that earth (land) was not yet formed and not yet existent in any sense of what it is now.

During the flood, the earth (the land) was covered by water. But was the earth formless and void at that time? Not at all. It's mountains were still there, some coming within 15 cubits of the surface. The flooded earth was not formless and void.

Also note, the ocean in the Genesis account isn't formed until verse 9 and named until verse 10. It's components were created early on, yes. But God then seems to walk us through the details of its formation over the next 8 verses. The same with the sea, BTW. Both the land and sea were made from the original waters according to the text. As Peter expounds. "by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

That's about all I can say for now. I will get to the rest of your reply.

 

[Calminian]

...

Gen. 1:1.... (NKJV)

Gen. .... (NIV)

Gen. 1:1 .... (NASB)

Gen. 1:1 ..., (Young's)

Gen. 1:1 ...(New Living)
​

...quote]


How is your Hebrew, Genesis was written in Paleo Hebrew not English. The earth "became without form, and void;" not "was." God did not create the earth imperfect, He did not create it tôhû , it (hâyâh ) became (tohû vā bohû) without form, and void.

There's a reason why no bible translations use the word became in verse 2. In fact I don't know of a single translation that does so. Here's an article I can refer you to. The Gap Theory—an Idea with Holes? The second section in particular deals with issue you bring up. 'Was means Was'

‘Was’ Means ‘Was’
A significant problem with this idea is that the Hebrew word for ‘was’ really should be translated ‘was’. It should not be translated ‘became’. It is the Hebrew verb of being, hayah, and normally it is simply translated ‘was’. In all the standard translations of the Old Testament, that is the way this verse is rendered. On some occasions, in an unusual situation if the context requires it, the word can be translated ‘became’. There are some instances like that in the Old Testament.
By far the tremendous majority of times, however, when the verb is used, it is simply translated ‘was’. In the absence of any indication in the immediate context that it should be rendered by a change of state, where it became something which it wasn’t, one would normally assume it was simply a declarative statement describing how the situation existed at the time. The earth was, in response to God’s creative fiat, initially without form and void.
Some people use Isaiah 45:18 as an argument for the use of ‘became’ in Genesis 1:2. In this verse, Isaiah says that God created the earth not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. The word ‘in vain’ is the same as tohu; that is, the same word translated ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2. So ‘gap’ theorists say that since God did not create it that way, it must have become that way. But again, the context is significant. In Isaiah, the context requires the use of the translation ‘in vain’. That is, God did not create the earth without a purpose; He created it to be inhabited. Genesis 1 tells us then how He brought form to the unformed earth and inhabitants to the empty earth. It was not really finished until He said so at the end of the six days of creation.
The word tohu is actually translated 10 different ways in about 20 occurrences in the Old Testament. Isaiah 45:19 has the same word, and there it has to be translated ‘vainly’ or ‘in vain’. It is also proper to translate it that way in Isaiah 45:18. It depends on the context as to how it is to be precisely translated. In Genesis 1:2 the context simply indicates the earth had no structure as yet. It was unformed; it was not even spherical at that point, but was comprised of only the basic elements of earth material.​

 

[ptomwebster]

Well, Calminian, I disagree with you and your article.

 

[ptomwebster]

dbl post

 

[Calminian]

Hi Cal,

Ok, thanks. I just felt that your opening statement left open that the earth(the planetary form) may have existed for eons and then one day God stepped into the picture and finished the job. So, I just wanted to be clear. I know that in the past you and I have held to a very similar agreement with the Scriptures in this place.

Six days about 6,000 years ago is my understanding.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

No, we're pretty much in unison on the basics. There are in-house debates on the text of Genesis 1:2. If you're familiar with Russell Humphreys of ICR, who wrote Starlight and Time, he also takes a similar view of the waters of verse 2. In fact I would venture to say, most creationists now favor a view at least similar to mine. Answers in Genesis actually have the 'Canopy' view on their "inadvisable arguments" list. That's not to say it's not a valid view, they just want to urged christians to understand it's not a direct teaching of scripture.

 

[Calminian]

Well, Calminian, I disagree with you and your article.

That's okay. I'm not inspired. If you have some specific areas where you think I'm not crossing my Ts, feel free to share. Frankly I doubt I have every T crossed at this point.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Interesting post, Calminian. I read Genesis 1:1 the same way: a title or summary of what the rest of the account describes, beginning with the starting conditions in Genesis 1:2.

One reason this view is often rejected (especially by more conservative Christians) is because when read this way, it no longer describes the creation of everything. In this reading, there is no explanation for where the primordial waters came from. Now, if one doesn't expect Genesis 1 to tell us everything, this is no problem. But for those who believe one of the key purposes of the text is to declare creation ex nihilo, this is a problem. Personally, I think a better case for God creating everything can be made from passages like Colossians 1:15-17 rather than forcing Genesis 1 to speak to this issue as well.

I think you may be blurring the word "waters" more than is justified, perhaps in order to harmonize the account with a scientific view of creation. I don't think science, whether mainstream or idiosyncratic, should be our baseline for understanding the waters. So, I would both reject generalizing the word "waters" so that it merely refers to any material that is fluid, or adding unnecessary precision to the term by equating it with pure h2o. Both salt water and fresh water are waters. As you pointed out, even urine is described as waters (though in an expression that is likely a euphemism and so not the best way to determine the meaning of the underlying word). But, a vat with molten metal does not contain "waters." Water is that wet stuff that, if it's pure enough, is drinkable, but is still water even if it's not so pure. The account itself seems to be using waters in this simple sense, since all it takes is separation to make the waters into seas (Genesis 1:9-10). So, I think "initial fluids" is not precise enough, but "pure h2o" is too precise.

 

[Calminian]

Interesting post, Calminian. I read Genesis 1:1 the same way: a title or summary of what the rest of the account describes, beginning with the starting conditions in Genesis 1:2.

One reason this view is often rejected (especially by more conservative Christians) is because when read this way, it no longer describes the creation of everything.

I've never seen this view rejected for that reason. I've seen Bible believers read it both ways. I used to hold the other view, but never for the reason you claim. Can you name me a few that make this argument? I'll stand corrected if you can.

In this reading, there is no explanation for where the primordial waters came from. Now, if one doesn't expect Genesis 1 to tell us everything, this is no problem. But for those who believe one of the key purposes of the text is to declare creation ex nihilo, this is a problem. Personally, I think a better case for God creating everything can be made from passages like Colossians 1:15-17 rather than forcing Genesis 1 to speak to this issue as well.

I don't see the dots connected on this argument. It's a non sequitur. Ex nihilo is in the Gen. 1:1. Moses affirms this in Ex. 20:11. There's nothing in verse 2 that makes a claim either way.

Maybe you can explain why the waters must be older or are even temporal.

I think you may be blurring the word "waters" more than is justified, perhaps in order to harmonize the account with a scientific view of creation.

I actually don't think creation was a scientific event. It was a miraculous event.

Feels like you're arguing with someone else. I don't quite know how to respond to your comments. I realize you don't agree with YEC views, but the thread really isn't about that. And I've never seen the logic in arguing, "well most like you don't believe this." That's never come across to me as in intelligent thing put out.

 

[ptomwebster]

Interesting post, Calminian. I read Genesis 1:1 the same way: a title or summary of what the rest of the account describes, beginning with the starting conditions in Genesis 1:2.

....

So you think GOD created something imperfect. That is certainly not my God!

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I've never seen this view rejected for that reason. I've seen Bible believers read it both ways. I used to hold the other view, but never for the reason you claim. Can you name me a few that make this argument? I'll stand corrected if you can.

I'm not attempting to correct you on what you've seen. I stated what my experience has been when I suggest this interpretation. Your mileage may vary. Indeed, I expect you will get a somewhat different reaction when you argue for this view, since you are coming from a different overall perspective on origins.

I don't see the dots connected on this argument. It's a non sequitur. Ex nihilo is in the Gen. 1:1.

Can you explain this? If Genesis 1:1 is a summary/title of the rest of the account, and if the rest of the account begins with waters in Genesis 1:2 with no word about their creation, then how is ex nihilo present in Genesis 1:1?

Maybe you can explain why the waters must be older or are even temporal.

It's the way they are not described as temporal or created, but rather as just existing, that leads to the issue.

Again, I don't think this is a problem. It doesn't bother me that Genesis 1 doesn't address how the first matter was created because I don't think that's its purpose. Other passages of Scripture do address this.

I actually don't think creation was a scientific event. It was a miraculous event.

No disagreement here. I just don't think "waters" can be stretched as far as you do, and I don't see any basis in the text to do so. But, I don't know your motivations for your reading, and I shouldn't have speculated about them.

Feels like you're arguing with someone else. I don't quite know how to respond to your comments. I realize you don't agree with YEC views, but the thread really isn't about that. And I've never seen the logic in arguing, "well most like you don't believe this."

Yes, this is a bit weird. I never mentioned YEC in that post, nor did I argue that "most like you don't believe this." (Please note that when I said that one argument often comes from more conservative Christians I am not claiming that most conservative Christians make that argument. Our position on Genesis 1:1 is well represented among conservative Christians.)

So, I guess I'm feeling the same thing -- like you're arguing with someone else. Sorry for my lack of clarity -- I'm obviously not communicating well. Hopefully this post is more clear.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

So you think GOD created something imperfect. That is certainly not my God!

It's worse than that. I even think God created me. Talk about imperfection!

 

[Calminian]

It's the way they are not described as temporal or created, but rather as just existing, that leads to the issue.

Now see if I were on your side, I would refrain from using this argument as a prooftext. It's an argument from silence. I would never used Gen. 1:2 to argue for or against ex nihilo.

Again, I don't think this is a problem. It doesn't bother me that Genesis 1 doesn't address how the first matter was created because I don't think that's its purpose. Other passages of Scripture do address this.

Actually Genesis 1 as in chapter 1, does address this. In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth. That is everything. Thats the biblical way of summing up the world.

You're perhaps looking for a passage that says, "God at some time after the initial creation reformed some materials and made the heavens and earth."

Of never seen anything of the kind.

No disagreement here. I just don't think "waters" can be stretched as far as you do, and I don't see any basis in the text to do so. But, I don't know your motivations for your reading, and I shouldn't have speculated about them.

My motives are to ascertain the truth of scripture to the best of my God given ability. I probably have a ways to go.

Yes, this is a bit weird. I never mentioned YEC in that post, nor did I argue that "most like you don't believe this." (Please note that when I said that one argument often comes from more conservative Christians I am not claiming that most conservative Christians make that argument. Our position on Genesis 1:1 is well represented among conservative Christians.)

Well, conservative on Genesis and YEC kind of go hand in hand so you can understand my mistake.

 

[ptomwebster]

It's worse than that. I even think God created me. Talk about imperfection!

Your parents created you.