Genesis 1:1-2

[Pats]

Genesis 1

The Creation

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The 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.

This part of the story of creation has always fascinated me. This seems to have taken place outside of creation week, the 6 days in wich God created our world and rested on the 7th. It seems that before that begins in Gen. 1:3, we have "the begining" wherein God created "the heavens" and "the earth."

A void and formless earth that seems to have been covered in water wich was already there and also created prior to creation week already existed before God said, "Let there be light," on the first day of creation week.

So, God chose not to explain this to us. We have nothing but speculation and interpretation to explain this.

I have never been to an indepth study of Creation in church, and have not been taught much on this. I'd like to hear the views of other creationists.

Pats
YEC

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Verse 1 is saying this is what God did at creation. He created the heaveans and the earth. The verses following are the more detailed account.

Verse 2 is the start of the more detailed account which is part of day 1 (see verse 5) followed by light being created (verse 3), not the sun but a difference source of light.

 

[mark kennedy]

There are a couple of different ways of look at Genesis 1:1,2. The Old School approach is that the initial "God created the heavens and the earth" is a general statement. Then you get a fully explanation of what was created on each of the six days. Finally, in chapter 2 the focus again shifts to the sixth day and the creation of Adam, Eve, the garden...etc. In modern times the age of the earth has become a major issue. Scientists are telling us that the earth is actually 4.8 billion years old so there's no way Genesis could be correct. The second view says that the earth is indeed 4.8 billion years old but life was created some 6-10 thousand years ago. They call that the gap theory.

God also describes the creation to Job asking him things that Job simply could not have known:

"4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?8 Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb?9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,10 And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors,11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? (Job 38:4-11)​

The primordial earth is described like a womb, probably the first two days. People in those days worshiped everything from earth mother fertility goddesess to celestial deities. God is describing here how all of these things people ignorantly worshiped were created by Him. The world without God's handiwork was chaotic, covered in water, and in utter darkness. God call forth the light which probably indicates he dispersed the thick cloud cover. I can tell you what I think the Scriptures reveal about creation.

First of all it is virtually incompehensible how God did all of this. We get the general order, plants then birds and fish then cattle and other land animals, finally man. Adam and Eve had dominion over the earth and were charged with being stewards of creation. Horticulter was their primary duty and if you notice, human beings are the only creatures on the planet who do this. When it says that man was given dominion and told to subdue it I think we are supposed to be keeping things in balance.

For instance, one of the problems with our forests is underbrush and dead limbs. After a while this can start massive fires. When I was at Ft. McCoy in Wisconsian one year we drove through the hills there. They had been systematically cleaning and burning the underbrush dead limbs...etc. The next year I went back for phase 2 of my training and I saw a dramatic difference. Instead of everything being brown and grey, it was green and lush.

Adam was created from the earth for the earth. He was also created in the image of God so we have something of a paradox in our nature. They say you can be so heavenly minded you will be of no earthly good. The reverse is also true, you can be so earthly minded you are of no heavenly good. That's one of the reasons I like creationism, it emphsises man's authority in the world and responsibility to the God who made him.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[chaoschristian]

I hope no one mind a non-creationst Creationsist responding. This is a topic that I really enjoy discussing .

I am very interested in looking at scripture as story, Our post-literate culture, I believe, has lost a great deal of perspective and appreciation for the original sense of the scriptural experience which would have been centered on the acts of speaking and hearing in groups rather than reading texts as individuals.

We were talking about Purim in church last week, and how the story of Esther is told in synagogue. How the children are encouraged to hiss and razz when the name of Haman is spoken. It's an experience that goes beyond the reading.

Now, if the story of Genesis is viewed in the same way, as story, then V1 and V2 begin to make more sense. Basically they act as the introduction, establishing the theme and the setting of the story.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This establishes the story (this is about creation, why there is all that there is)

2The 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. This establishes the setting (we're talking about an earth-centered culture whose entire conceptualization of the universe comprised the earth and a bunch of bright shiny things suspended from high above)

The really interesting thing about V2 is its reference to the deep. Other contemporaneous creation myths from that region refer to the deep/the sea/the waters in the same way that V2 does here. From what I understand, this represents the forces of chaos (disorder). Common to these myths is the act of (x=deity) killing the water beast/pulling earth out of water/defeating or binding the water. The idea being that (x=deity) has the power to bring order to/from chaos.

For our own particular story earth is established as being in a state of chaos (or ruled by chaos) veiled in darkness (deep water and night - two very scary things to ancient as well as modern man).

God's first act to create light and seperate it from the darkness. To my eye this represents the act of setting aside the holy from the unholy, a theme that is repeated throughout scripture, most notably in Revelation.

His next acts are to seperate the waters, thereby forming the universe and setting earth in its center, following by binding the waters by land.

So, God's triumph over chaos is complete in three acts: setting aside holy from unholy, dividing the unholy and turning it into something useful, binding the remainder by land, thus setting a limit to its influence and destructive power.

Also notable is that God is the one who names all of the new parts. Naming is an important power, it establishes the right to determine identidy and establishes possession. By naming day/night/sky/earth/see God establishes His dominion over all of these things.

God's order is established as being superior to disorder.

 

[Pats]

I'm really hoping to revisit this thread and respond in more depth than what I have time for right now.

Thanks to all of you who responded, especially to those who went into detail. I just love intracate responses.

Mark, I agree that scripture should be interprated with scripture. Thanks for pointing out those vs in Job. I've read it a few times, but I don't think I took it slow enough to really take notice of those.

chaos, I'm glad you popped in. I may not agree with comparing Biblical scripture to "other creation myths of the time," but I can appreciate a lot of what you said.

In my understanding, there are many places in the Bible where God has done a very intracate job of weaving together literal accounts of fact that also hold symbolic meanings.

 

[shernren]

I'm not a creationist either in the sense you mean, but I would suggest that if you wish to dwell further on this you could look at the other "In the beginning" of the Bible - John 1. Note the parallels between God's spoken words and God's Word Incarnate, between the created light and the Divine Eternal Light. Perhaps John is trying to say something? Think about it. I haven't had too much time to, unfortunately, but you could always start first.

 

[Chief117]

Genesis 1

The Creation

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The 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.

This part of the story of creation has always fascinated me. This seems to have taken place outside of creation week, the 6 days in wich God created our world and rested on the 7th. It seems that before that begins in Gen. 1:3, we have "the begining" wherein God created "the heavens" and "the earth."

A void and formless earth that seems to have been covered in water wich was already there and also created prior to creation week already existed before God said, "Let there be light," on the first day of creation week.

I believe that this line of thinking is refuted in the Bible. I just made a remark along similar lines in this post.

So, God chose not to explain this to us. We have nothing but speculation and interpretation to explain this.

I believe He did explain it to us in Exodus 20--you just have to read the whole of Scripture. It often reveals itself.

 

[Pats]

I believe that this line of thinking is refuted in the Bible. I just made a remark along similar lines in this post.



I believe He did explain it to us in Exodus 20--you just have to read the whole of Scripture. It often reveals itself.

Cheif, your comments combined with Mark's on the creatoin references in Job really do help to clarify the passage.

I too, agree, whole heartedly that scripture must be compared with the whole of scripture before good interpretation can be drawn out of it.

 

[Godfixated]

While, I am a gap theorist, I am, also, a YEC. I believe that this earth, the second earth, is 6000-10000 years old and that whatever God created before Genesis 1:2 was the first earth. I believe that this is when God created dinosaurs and that they became extinct because of a spiritual battle between God and satan detailed in Isaiah 14 and other places in the Word.

 

[diana_ch]

I may not agree with comparing Biblical scripture to "other creation myths of the time," but I can appreciate a lot of what you said.

Hey, I'm really not too sure what I would say I'd call myself, as I agree with Mark and Chaoschristian... I don't really think that Chaoschristian was actually saying to compare Scripture with other myths.
My thing is that every time I read the Scripture I ask myself who was the intended audience/reader and what did they believe in at the time.
Now having that in mind, when Moses wrote this, the people at the time did believe in over 3500 "gods" and they had their own weird story of creation, what he was trying to get these people to understand was that Elohim (God Creator in Ch.1) was God above all other gods, as he then moves onto Ch.2 and Gods name changes to Yaweh (God of Israel...) In that manner, the nation that believed in all these other pagan gods, knew that our God was and is the Sovereign Creator...
Hmmm, I know what I have in mind, not too sure if it has come out the way I was hoping....

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis 1 is vitally important, sooner or later we are all going to have to deal with this. The core message is that in in begining God created, that is by definition a supernatural event. We can accept that God became flesh and dwelled amoung us but we struggle with this passage?

God didn't give us a lot of details in this passage, maybe we can't handle it. I am wholeheartedly opposed to this being dismissed as myth, no matter how important myth might be to some people. I view the Scripures as history, revealed by the only eyewittness that actually viewed this event. This is no myth, this is an event whether or not you want to take Genesis figurativly is beside the point. Either God acted in time and space to produce life or He did not.

I think He did, and if that means some of our science is wrong then so be it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[vossler]

Genesis 1 is vitally important, sooner or later we are all going to have to deal with this. The core message is that in in begining God created, that is by definition a supernatural event. We can accept that God became flesh and dwelled amoung us but we struggle with this passage?

God didn't give us a lot of details in this passage, maybe we can't handle it. I am wholeheartedly opposed to this being dismissed as myth, no matter how important myth might be to some people. I view the Scripures as history, revealed by the only eyewitness that actually viewed this event. This is no myth, this is an event whether or not you want to take Genesis figurativly is beside the point. Either God acted in time and space to produce life or He did not.

I think He did, and if that means some of our science is wrong then so be it.

Amen brother

 

[keyarch]

While, I am a gap theorist, I am, also, a YEC. I believe that this earth, the second earth, is 6000-10000 years old and that whatever God created before Genesis 1:2 was the first earth. I believe that this is when God created dinosaurs and that they became extinct because of a spiritual battle between God and satan detailed in Isaiah 14 and other places in the Word.

I think your two theories are in conflict and that it' possible that you merely have an open mind to aspects of the different theories. I think part of that conflict stems from the need to reconcile certain evidences and how the scientific community currently views them.

I think that a detailed study of the two models would reveal to you that they can’t both be the absolute truth. In other words, you can’t hold to a YEC model which says everything was created from nothing during the creation week (some 6k ya.) and still say that there was a prior creation that was ruined.

If it could be shown that there are no dating methods than can prove ANY biology is older than the 6-10k years, what would that do to your models? In other words, if you found that these dating methods are based on naturalistic assumptions rather than hard facts, would you still believe them?

 

[Pats]

I believe that this is when God created dinosaurs and that they became extinct because of a spiritual battle between God and satan detailed in Isaiah 14 and other places in the Word.

I'm not sure how Is. 14 can be interprated that way, I'll have to look into that again just for the fun of it.

Hey, I'm really not too sure what I would say I'd call myself, as I agree with Mark and Chaoschristian... I don't really think that Chaoschristian was actually saying to compare Scripture with other myths.

Maybe Chaos will come back and clarify for us.

My thing is that every time I read the Scripture I ask myself who was the intended audience/reader and what did they believe in at the time.
Now having that in mind, when Moses wrote this, the people at the time did believe in over 3500 "gods" and they had their own weird story of creation, what he was trying to get these people to understand was that Elohim (God Creator in Ch.1) was God above all other gods, as he then moves onto Ch.2 and Gods name changes to Yaweh (God of Israel...) In that manner, the nation that believed in all these other pagan gods, knew that our God was and is the Sovereign Creator...

Actually, at least that clears up the theory that Genesis is refering to a pantheon of gods here, lol. Wether you take Gen. allegorically or literally, this makes sense.

I take Gen. literally, although I am sure it is missing information. I think it has laid down the basics God felt we needed to know. One thing I don't get, is Christians calling scripture "myth." I can see refering to it as allegory, but "myth..." that's how my pagan friend refers to our entire belief system as Christians, myth. I'm not comfortable calling Genesis a myth. Not at all.

 

[diana_ch]

I'm not comfortable calling Genesis a myth. Not at all.

AMEN!!!!!

 

[chaoschristian]

Maybe Chaos will come back and clarify for us.

I've just returned from a four day conference in Cincinnati on servant evangelism. What a great time. Truly inspiring.

Now, while I help my wife recover from her surgery, I don't have as much time to read and post as I once did.

But, it is quite this morning, so I can hopefully clarify what I meant.

Indeed, I was comparing scripture to other creation myths. This is permissable. We have to have faith in our faith. God doesn't get angry when we seek out an understanding of His revelations. We can take many paths, and while we travel we must learn to rely upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit to keep us right.

Now, first let me say that I do not hold to a liberal, post-modern theology. I do not deconstruct scripture. I do hold to the point of view that scripture is complex, and that without a thorough investigation of its historic, cultural, and literary contexts we will fail to understand it.

If you are of the POV that God dictated scripture to its scribes, then what I say won't make a lot of sense to you. If you are of the POV that God's truth (character, will and intent) are conveyed through scripture despite the fact that what we have in hand now are translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of attemtps by men seeking to understand their relationship with God, their understanding of Him, and an explanation of the events surrounding them at that time, them perhaps I won't come across as a babbling fool.

Within in this context, it would be a big mistake not to look at the cultures surrounding the early Hebrews and a mistake not to examine their literature and their culture. Why? Because cultures do not exist in a vacuum. The early Hebrews would have been exposed to and even familiar with the creation stories of the other cultures surrounding them, such as the Babylonians and Egyptians. These stories would have had an impact on Hebrew culture. In response to this, Hebrew fathers/leaders would have begun to tell (not write, but tell - pre-literate culture and all) a story of creation that would help explain away these other creation accounts. And what can be seen in Genesis is just that, a creation story filled with references that lead back to other 'foreign' creation accounts and a theological refutation of the assertions of those accounts.

Think of this way, in order to study and have a full appreciation of what Revelation is saying, one must be familiar with the genre in which it is written - apocalyptic. It matters not to God that in pursuit of your understand one goes on to read and study other apocalyptics, with the intend of furthering one's understand of John's Revelation. To study a genre and the extant literature of a genre does not necessarily mean that one is equating the divine value of inspired scripture with all of that other literature. As with Genesis, we can examine and comparatively critique the inspire Creation account against other creation of the time period in pursuit of a better understanding of what is being revealed.

 

[Pats]

Chaos, I'm glad you had the chance to come back and explain your POV more fully.

Off topic: I hope and pray your wife is doing well.

I find comparing Genesis to ancient pagan myths interesting. I see a lot of what you and Gluadys and had to say about that.

I am begining to understand why God explained creation the way He did.

But, I still believe in creation. It seems to be locked into teachings on Salvation in a way that is difficult to seperate. I also cannot find scriptural support for man descending from animals. I find too much scriptural refutation on that, to the best of my understanding and faith.

Perhaps creation is not entirely supported by science. Why would a miracle be?

My belief in creation is based on faith, and faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[chaoschristian]

Thank you for your prayers. She is recovering quite nicely, and in fact she is expecting to go back to work after next week.

Chaos, I'm glad you had the chance to come back and explain your POV more fully.

Off topic: I hope and pray your wife is doing well.

I find comparing Genesis to ancient pagan myths interesting. I see a lot of what you and Gluadys and had to say about that.

I am begining to understand why God explained creation the way He did.

But, I still believe in creation. It seems to be locked into teachings on Salvation in a way that is difficult to seperate. I also cannot find scriptural support for man descending from animals. I find too much scriptural refutation on that, to the best of my understanding and faith.

Perhaps creation is not entirely supported by science. Why would a miracle be?

My belief in creation is based on faith, and faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[diana_ch]

Within in this context, it would be a big mistake not to look at the cultures surrounding the early Hebrews and a mistake not to examine their literature and their culture. Why? Because cultures do not exist in a vacuum. The early Hebrews would have been exposed to and even familiar with the creation stories of the other cultures surrounding them, such as the Babylonians and Egyptians. These stories would have had an impact on Hebrew culture. In response to this, Hebrew fathers/leaders would have begun to tell (not write, but tell - pre-literate culture and all) a story of creation that would help explain away these other creation accounts. And what can be seen in Genesis is just that, a creation story filled with references that lead back to other 'foreign' creation accounts and a theological refutation of the assertions of those accounts.

Think of this way, in order to study and have a full appreciation of what Revelation is saying, one must be familiar with the genre in which it is written - apocalyptic. It matters not to God that in pursuit of your understand one goes on to read and study other apocalyptics, with the intend of furthering one's understand of John's Revelation. To study a genre and the extant literature of a genre does not necessarily mean that one is equating the divine value of inspired scripture with all of that other literature. As with Genesis, we can examine and comparatively critique the inspire Creation account against other creation of the time period in pursuit of a better understanding of what is being revealed.

Wow, that's pretty much what I had tried to say but in a much less eloquent manner... way to go!

 

[SoulReaper]

The primordial earth is described like a womb, probably the first two days. People in those days worshiped everything from earth mother fertility goddesess to celestial deities. God is describing here how all of these things people ignorantly worshiped were created by Him. The world without God's handiwork was chaotic, covered in water, and in utter darkness. God call forth the light which probably indicates he dispersed the thick cloud cover. I can tell you what I think the Scriptures reveal about creation.

First of all it is virtually incompehensible how God did all of this. We get the general order, plants then birds and fish then cattle and other land animals, finally man. Adam and Eve had dominion over the earth and were charged with being stewards of creation. Horticulter was their primary duty and if you notice, human beings are the only creatures on the planet who do this. When it says that man was given dominion and told to subdue it I think we are supposed to be keeping things in balance.

Adam was created from the earth for the earth. He was also created in the image of God so we have something of a paradox in our nature. They say you can be so heavenly minded you will be of no earthly good. The reverse is also true, you can be so earthly minded you are of no heavenly good. That's one of the reasons I like creationism, it emphsises man's authority in the world and responsibility to the God who made him.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I do not take the Old Testament literally....I do not believe in the Adam and Eve story....I believe it was a visual representation of the creation of man, so people could understand it more.....