What is the primordial darkness?

[Gregory Thompson]

Ancient Hebrew is a very concrete language and it's no surprise abstracts like "nothing" are formed out of things that are more observable like darkness (although I'm not quite sure if thats the case) Darkness itself has little meaning without light so in that sense darkness is predicated by the light not light by the darkness.

1:1 says the earth was "formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters" these are describing the absence of things needed. Saying the earth is in this states is a call for it to be formed, filled and for light to cover it. Even the deep waters calls for land. And this is exactly what happens in creation, the light is spoken into the darkness, it organized and formed, land emerges and then the skies, waters and land are filled.

The completion ushers in day 7 which is the exact opposite of the formless empty earth. The metaphor is not hard to see. Christ speaks into the darkness of our lives, forms and shapes it as a potter to the pot, then fills it building to a state where his work in us is complete which ushers in rest.

The thing is, God quite often says one thing, and then another right after to reinforce the first point. Though it is phrased in such a way that when a human says it, it sounds like two things are being spoken of.

 

[DamianWarS]

I could also say as when man was created, God said it is not good for man to be alone, perhaps it is the same with darkness. Without light, darkness is not good. However, darkness and light as a pair are good.

I try and keep Gen 1 alone and not overlap it with other Genesis accounts because I see Gen 1 as standing apart. It has different goals and it is not just the first chapter of a book with continuous thought but rather the first account of a larger collection. Gen 1 is very different than Gen 2. Early Genesis accounts are like a collection of accounts fused together by a thread of genealogy but the accounts themselves tend to stand alone. the genealogy is goal driven itself to bind the accounts to the Hebrews rather than having them disconnected.
In Genesis 1 God does not create "man" he creates "mankind" from the use of plural pronouns. We want to pair this with Genesis 2 but it in fact is not that similar. They both use the same word "adam" but Gen 2 is about "adam" the man, whereas Gen 1 is "adam" the species.

Regarding what is good and what is not in the text, I don't see God calling darkness good or darkness and light mixed. light is very intentionally separated from darkness and only light is called good. We may infer that things are "not good" but the text doesn't really comment on the moral quality of the darkness, however I think it is clear it light is the contrast to darkness and light is called good. day 7 is also the complete opposite of what we see before the light comes.

The thing is, God quite often says one thing, and then another right after to reinforce the first point. Though it is phrased in such a way that when a human says it, it sounds like two things are being spoken of.

the acconts are goal driven and their details are there to support the goal. they do not need to agree with another account that has a different goal. For example, Mathew and Luke have different genealogies. why? because they have different goals in mind and both are right at the same time. We like to say on is of joseph and the other Mary, perhaps, or Matthew has a more ambition and uses a more redeemed genealogy to communicate honor to Christ.

In honor driven cultures the honor is a higher value than that which is literal, and honor accounts can become the truth. if something sounds better and places higher honor, than it can be the path chosen, not because it's literal, but because it's the best way to give glory to God. Western cultures see the most accurate and literal as the highest value so often will interpret the bible very literally which is misfocused but they do it to honor the bible because literalness is a higher value for them. Young Washington is often quoted saying "I cannot tell a lie, I cut the cherry tree down". which is a slice of our cultures calues of placing the honesty in the literal details as the higest value. So even if something dishonors someone (like cutting down a tree) we place the literal details higher than honor itself call it honesty. The ironic part of Washington's story is it's not a factual story. It never happened, it was made up to communicate that Washington was a very honest person, so that account actually places honor for Washington higher than the factual details, but it's ture because it's the best version of the account and we want to have high value for our leaders so accept it, even if it's not true.

Today western culture flip that, and the literal is the most important value even at the cost of honor, that is just not the case in ancient Eastern cultures like what we see in the bible. Accounts are motivated for different reasons and because of that the details are more fluid and there to support the goal. I'm not saying all accounts are this way but we can allow for tension in accounts without actually needing to reconcile them together. They may stand apart and alone because they have different goals even if the ways they get there conflict with each other.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I try and keep Gen 1 alone and not overlap it with other Genesis accounts because I see Gen 1 as standing apart. It has different goals and it is not just the first chapter of a book with continuous thought but rather the first account of a larger collection. Gen 1 is very different than Gen 2. Early Genesis accounts are like a collection of accounts fused together by a thread of genealogy but the accounts themselves tend to stand alone. the genealogy is goal driven itself to bind the accounts to the Hebrews rather than having them disconnected.
In Genesis 1 God does not create "man" he creates "mankind" from the use of plural pronouns. We want to pair this with Genesis 2 but it in fact is not that similar. They both use the same word "adam" but Gen 2 is about "adam" the man, whereas Gen 1 is "adam" the species.

Regarding what is good and what is not in the text, I don't see God calling darkness good or darkness and light mixed. light is very intentionally separated from darkness and only light is called good. We may infer that things are "not good" but the text doesn't really comment on the moral quality of the darkness, however I think it is clear it light is the contrast to darkness and light is called good. day 7 is also the complete opposite of what we see before the light comes.



the acconts are goal driven and their details are there to support the goal. they do not need to agree with another account that has a different goal. For example, Mathew and Luke have different genealogies. why? because they have different goals in mind and both are right at the same time. We like to say on is of joseph and the other Mary, perhaps, or Matthew has a more ambition and uses a more redeemed genealogy to communicate honor to Christ.

In honor driven cultures the honor is a higher value than that which is literal, and honor accounts can become the truth. if something sounds better and places higher honor, than it can be the path chosen, not because it's literal, but because it's the best way to give glory to God. Western cultures see the most accurate and literal as the highest value so often will interpret the bible very literally which is misfocused but they do it to honor the bible because literalness is a higher value for them. Young Washington is often quoted saying "I cannot tell a lie, I cut the cherry tree down". which is a slice of our cultures calues of placing the honesty in the literal details as the higest value. So even if something dishonors someone (like cutting down a tree) we place the literal details higher than honor itself call it honesty. The ironic part of Washington's story is it's not a factual story. It never happened, it was made up to communicate that Washington was a very honest person, so that account actually places honor for Washington higher than the factual details, but it's ture because it's the best version of the account and we want to have high value for our leaders so accept it, even if it's not true.

Today western culture flip that, and the literal is the most important value even at the cost of honor, that is just not the case in ancient Eastern cultures like what we see in the bible. Accounts are motivated for different reasons and because of that the details are more fluid and there to support the goal. I'm not saying all accounts are this way but we can allow for tension in accounts without actually needing to reconcile them together. They may stand apart and alone because they have different goals even if the ways they get there conflict with each other.

I recognize we're looking at it from parallel foundations, thanks for sharing.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

in the Genesis creation account (ch 1) it says "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" (v2) then light is spoken into the darkness (v3). So what is this darkness?

Modern science says the 'big bang' was created from nothing.
The universe is expanding, at some point it will be so large matter from exploded stars will not be able to clump together in a for that is even big enough to shed light like our sun does.
If the big-bang was 15BYA, then matter started to clump into two forms that collided to create what we call the beginning, perhaps 40BYA.
Each barren world in the new earth will go through what Eden did, the '6 days' will take about 6BY to go from barren to 'full of life'. How many years to do that to every world in the universe is how long the New earth will take to reach that stage.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Perhaps a very literal explanation works. What is light? God made the light sources on day 4, so this making light cannot be the same thing. God's word is written in such a way that the youngest child and the greatest minds can be equally amazed at Him.
Ask "what is light"? Think Maxwell's equations. What God formed on day 1 are the very fundamental physical constants and properties of the universe. He defined electrical charge. He defined magnetism. He probably defined all four forces on day 1, Planck's constant, and others. This is more likely "let there be light". That makes the darkness much more difficult to understand.

Proverbs 8 gives us some insight

22 “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
(my comment - before there was a definition of up or down - was this gravity?)
25 “Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
(my comment - there was no spherical shape to the earth before this)
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
(my comment - we cannot think of this as concrete footings of a building since we know the earth as a sphere orbiting through space and Solomon knew this too in vs 27. These foundations would better be understood as physical laws and physical constants)
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
31 Rejoicing in the world, His earth,
And having my delight in the sons of men.


New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Pr 8:22–31). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.

 

[CMDRExorcist]

The creation story can certainly be used as a metaphorical parallel for the salvation story. However, my opinion is that reducing the Genesis creation story to a metaphor devalues the work of God in setting our universe in motion. A metaphorical creation story in the Bible is no different from the metaphorical creation stories of other ancient religions. In a physical sense, there's more evidence for the Biblical creation story than for it to be metaphorical.

As for the darkness, because I ascribe to a primarily physical understanding of these passages, the darkness is deep space without the activated nuclear fusion of our Sun. In the beginning, the lights were off, so God ignited the fires of the Sun and brought forth illumination to his masterpiece creation. The primordial darkness was that time before our world was the cohesive and complex system it is today. When the void was filled with disorder, chaos, and a complete lack of coherent Godly structure.

We cannot see in the dark because we are not designed by God to see in the dark, which is a perfect parallel for the fact that we cannot be with God as sinful and disobedient creatures because we were not designed to be that way.

Just my $0.02.