In the beginning

[DPMartin]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Seeing that our God inhabits eternity (Isa 57:15), before ver. 1 there was nothing but God as far as God tells us. So it can be presumed that at the time of the first verse He wasn’t present within His creation. And without His Presence the first half of the second verse is the condition and state of anything existing without the influence of His Presence therein.


Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


After God’s Presence is in His creation then He reveals His Presence via His Word and therefore all of God’s creation knows Him by His Word and through His Word and only through His Word. Note that there is no response to God’s Presence over the waters, until He spoke. His choice of water might be interesting for many reasons. I mean Noah floated on the face of the waters, starting all flesh on exposed earth over. A cleansing for sure but it seems that it could go back to where God started in His creation bring all flesh to it’s start again. also, God parted the waters for Israel more than once, and for some of His prophets, but Jesus walked on the face of the waters. demonstrating to His apostles just who He is, and where He is from.


Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now Jesus comes into the world, from Heaven, the Light of the world, and we still dwell in a world though in the Light, darkness remains in the world, of which there is the promise of no more darkness in the world. I do believe 2 Peter mentions something to that effect in the later part of same epistle.

Hence God commands and the command says “let” and that which did not “let” remains darkness. Note the info that darkness still existed via God separating the two.


Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


This is the KJV and the word "saw" especially in the 1600’s meant a saw blade or to declare, I do believe Shakespeare used the word saw in mentioning God’s declaration. So it could read, and God declared the light that it was good. This is reason to see that it is God that declares (judges) what is good in His creation for His creation, no exceptions. Note that He doesn’t at least as of yet, declare the darkness as good. But its no secret or hard understanding that a day in God’s view is when He sets out to fulfill His will expressed. and when His Word is fulfilled in His Presence according to His Word and to His Judgement of what is good, evening and morning are that day.


Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It may be important to note that where there was not, God speaks to, and then there is. As into the darkness, void and without form, and becomes Light order and established structure.

added:


I also forgot to mention that this is where the trinity is first shown in scripture, there is God, there is the Presence of God (Holy Spirit) and the Word of God (now made flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ) that is of God that goes out from God. Hence all three are One God.

 

[Ken Behrens]

It does not say there was nothing. Jewish interpreters point this out, when they say, of course God created everything from nothing, but you must use other passages (not Gen. 1) to prove this. Gen. 1 deals with the creation of meaning and purpose in an environment of formlessness and void. Formlessness is something, since it implies the existence of potential form to compare it to. Void is something, since it can only be recognized as the absence of everything. They also point out that we are "in" the beginning, not "at" the beginning. Gen. 1 deals with "bara", the making of the purpose and plan. Gen. 2 deals with "asher" or the completion and appearance of the plan in material form. God was never absent from being with His creation, from the time He created from nothing, right up until the time of creation of the light.

 

[DPMartin]

It does not say there was nothing. Jewish interpreters point this out, when they say, of course God created everything from nothing, but you must use other passages (not Gen. 1) to prove this. Gen. 1 deals with the creation of meaning and purpose in an environment of formlessness and void. Formlessness is something, since it implies the existence of potential form to compare it to. Void is something, since it can only be recognized as the absence of everything. They also point out that we are "in" the beginning, not "at" the beginning. Gen. 1 deals with "bara", the making of the purpose and plan. Gen. 2 deals with "asher" or the completion and appearance of the plan in material form. God was never absent from being with His creation, from the time He created from nothing, right up until the time of creation of the light.

Na

In the beginning means simply what it says, when the beginning was, no razzle dazzle hair splitting interpretation necessary. Besides anyone here isn't more expert about what is the English equivalent of another language then the Brits considering it is their language. America doesn't have a language that is American unless you want to look to native Indians and the like.

Also, God dwells in the Light and not in darkness, and we also know that God dwells within those who are born again and not within those who are not born again, or He is found in Righteousness and not found in unrighteousness. God does create and makes things without His presence within, as I pointed out God’s Presence was not within His creation until midway through the second verse. And He chooses who or what His Presence shall be with within His creation. Those who are familiar with the Lord God and His Ways would know this already without this explanation.


Just because God is aware of something He made doesn’t mean He is within it or His Presence is with, or within it.

 

[1watchman]

We need to be careful not to be presumptuous about God's Word, which He delivered to us to hold and follow. I know some Christians presume to interpret millions or billions of years (to conform to the Atheist scientists) between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1. It is called "the Gap Theory", and I am confident it is a lie of Satan (though the Christians who support it would not see it as from Satan). Let us know that God will only hold us accountable to what He delivered to us from the beginning and to this day without new changes.

 

[DPMartin]

We need to be careful not to be presumptuous about God's Word, which He delivered to us to hold and follow. I know some Christians presume to interpret millions or billions of years (to conform to the Atheist scientists) between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1. It is called "the Gap Theory", and I am confident it is a lie of Satan (though the Christians who support it would not see it as from Satan). Let us know that God will only hold us accountable to what He delivered to us from the beginning and to this day without new changes.

What presumption are you talking about here, in relation to the OP?

As far as this “Gap Theory” you mention, there is a ignorance of assumption within the Christian community that believes the days of creation are 24 hr. days when any reader can see the sun and the moon didn’t exist until sometime during the fourth day, in which there could be no rising and setting of the sun’s light on the face of the earth, for what is today a day on the earth. Therefore, the view that the days of creation could be any amount of time isn't and evil view. atheists are incorrect when it comes to the existence of God, but that doesn't mean they can't read. the serpent was much more familiar with what exactly God said, then Eve was, and tested her for it, to see where he could deceive.

God isn’t talking to us in terms of our days, in this case, He is talking to us in terms of His days, from His view. We must remember who informed man of this information considering He may have been the only One there during some of, if not most of those days of creation.

 

[1watchman]

Well, my main thought was the last sentence. Keep looking up and "hold faith"; "hold forth; "hold fast"!

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The Jewish scholars and teachers with whom I've spoken seem to read the initial phrase (transliterated) 'bara' to literally mean 'in the beginning' and signify 'at the very start'. Which brings up the question of 'start' of what? In context, it signifies the very start of 'everything'.

Obviously, this excludes the Creator and by extension, His dwelling and angels and such.

The other suggestions I've read of the beginning of the Universe NOT arising from a total lack of anything are numerous pagan origin stories and one physicist, Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss.

 

[DPMartin]

The Jewish scholars and teachers with whom I've spoken seem to read the initial phrase (transliterated) 'bara' to literally mean 'in the beginning' and signify 'at the very start'. Which brings up the question of 'start' of what? In context, it signifies the very start of 'everything'.

Obviously, this excludes the Creator and by extension, His dwelling and angels and such.

The other suggestions I've read of the beginning of the Universe NOT arising from a total lack of anything are numerous pagan origin stories and one physicist, Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss.

Not that I care what the science community thinks, but you mention pagan beliefs. Before there was an acceptance of the well-known “Big Bang Theory” the science community in general accepted or presumed that the universe existed forever. So if anyone finds themselves arguing against “big bang” possibilities, one might reconsider that, that line of thinking could bring opportunity to argue that something started it (the universe) hence the Lord our God. I was reading the Stone's Torah and happened to notice a commentary that stated something to the effect that Israel’s practicing of the Sabbath was a witness to the world that their God was the Creator. So the concern for the understanding in the world, that the universe had a start and it was the Lord God of Israel that did it, goes back some.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Not that I care what the science community thinks, but you mention pagan beliefs.

Not a particularly valid or rational connection, but going on...

Before there was an acceptance of the well-known “Big Bang Theory” the science community in general accepted or presumed that the universe existed forever. So if anyone finds themselves arguing against “big bang” possibilities, one might reconsider that, that line of thinking could bring opportunity to argue that something started it (the universe) hence the Lord our God.

I've pointed this out a number of times. The Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaitre (Belgian priest and astronomer) developed an early version he called the 'Cosmic Egg'; a bit of an inside joke on Hinduism, I think. As it happens, Einstein's work on General Relativity also predicted an expanding Universe and then Edwin Hubble verified the expansion with photographic studies and determination of red shift in light.

Some astronomers who preferred the 'no god' version went nuts. Among them, Fred (later Sir Fred) Hoyle, who came up with the 'steady state' theory of the Universe. (Sir Fred also came up with the term 'Big Bang' as a derisive title.) The internal 'fight' went on until the early 1970s when all the experimentation designed to test the steady state theory falsified the theory and predictions.

Now, the atheist torch is being carried by the M theory faction. Which is not uniformly celebrated and accepted.

Do not be fooled into thinking 'science' is any more unified and monolithic than say - Christianity.

I was reading the Stone's Torah and happened to notice a commentary that stated something to the effect that Israel’s practicing of the Sabbath was a witness to the world that their God was the Creator. So the concern for the understanding in the world, that the universe had a start and it was the Lord God of Israel that did it, goes back some.

That sounds remarkably the same as my understanding of Jewish beliefs. However, traditional Hebrew culture has little tradition of 'science' in the same manner as 'Western Civilization'; there are many Jewish scientists in all fields of science, but they tend to follow the mainstream - Gentile? - thoughts. Albert Einstein being an example.

Consequently, the Creation story of Genesis was always considered a revelation from the Creator, but wasn't 'science', so to speak.