YEC: What did God do before Earth?

[coolguybrad]

...It might have been better translated....

.......

 

[Yekcidmij]

I promise I will keep our other discussion where it was but I did want to share this with you about this thread.

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

It might have been better translated, "And the Earth existed without form and was void." or perhaps, "And it came to pass that the Earth was created without a form and was void/empty."

He also didnt specifically mention alot of things. Perhaps God was trying to create a quick two chapter summary on the Creation as opposed to an entire thesis on the subject. Perhaps God just wanted to give us a bit, then move onto the story that involves us and Him and His redemption plan.

I think היה is in the perfect tense, meaning the action is completed in Gen 1:2, and there is no verb for "created" (ברָ&#1488 in 1:2. So you can't translate Gen 1:2 as "...the earth was created...". The picture in Gen 1:2 is one of earth already created (explicitly stated in 1:1) and a condition in which the earth is תהו ובהו ('formless and void' or 'chaotic and empty' or 'void and waste'; cf: Jer 4:23).

When trying to figure out a translation for a verse, a lexicon (such as Brown-Driver-Briggs) should be used, not Strong's Concordance since Strong's doesn't give verb conjugation. Strong's will just give the verb root. This is usually not necessary though since the translators of our English versions usually do a good job for us.

And 'coolguybrad' is correct that the waters are never said to have been created in Genesis 1. The 'water' is just already there when God starts forming the earth.

 

[Yekcidmij]

2. Genesis says that God created the water at Time 0.

I must have missed that one in Genesis.

Genesis makes it clear that God created the water,

That may be how you read it, but Genesis never makes it clear. To an ancient reader living in the Near East, it might have been taken very differently as if the water had always been there. So it's not exactly 'clear' to everyone.

3. According to Dr. Russell Humphreys' cosmology, which I ascribe to, the water referred to in Genesis as "The Deep" is a truly deep ball of water about 1 light year in radius encompassing all the matter in the presently observable universe. Beginning at time zero, it compressed under its own massive gravity and became a superstar, which God then exploded on the surface of a 4th dimensional hypersphere to create the universe as we know it. That "explosion" may be continuing to this day, since all the distant galaxies are still accelerating away from us in all directions. Not just the matter is accelerating, but space itself is stretching. There are at least four references in the Bible to God stretching out the heavens.

It's amazing what people will come up with.

 

[SkyWriting]

That may be how you read it, but Genesis never makes it clear. To an ancient reader living in the Near East, it might have been taken very differently as if the water had always been there. So it's not exactly 'clear' to everyone.

It's amazing what people will come up with.

Especially the well 'edumacated:

-If the Sun were made of bananas, it would be just as hot
-All the matter that makes up the human race could fit in a sugar cube
-Events in the future can affect what happened in the past
-Almost all of the Universe is missing
-Things can travel faster than light; and light doesn’t always travel very fast
-There are an infinite number of mes writing this, and an infinite number of yous reading it
-Black holes aren’t black
-A particle here can affect one on the other side of the universe, instantaneously
-The faster you move, the heavier you get

The 10 weirdest physics facts, from relativity to quantum physics - Telegraph

 

[True_Blue]

It might have been better translated, "And the Earth existed without form and was void." or perhaps, "And it came to pass that the Earth was created without a form and was void/empty."

He also didnt specifically mention alot of things. Perhaps God was trying to create a quick two chapter summary on the Creation as opposed to an entire thesis on the subject. Perhaps God just wanted to give us a bit, then move onto the story that involves us and Him and His redemption plan.
[/SIZE]

My view is that the Bible's description of the earth being void, formless, or empty refers to the matter that now comprises the earth as once a virtual drop of water somewhere near the center of supermassive ball of water. The water then became plasma as it was subjected to compressive forces, and then when God exploded the ball and expanded space, the matter comprising the earth expanded and cooled, forming the earth as we now know it.

This is the only explanation of the first few verses of the Bible that I have found that make sense to me.

 

[Jazer]

If the age of the earth is 6000 yrs, what was God doing before then?

6000 years ago was the beginning of Adam and Eve and the Hebrew people.
Science and DNA will tell you the same thing the Bible does.

 

[Hisbygrace]

MOD HAT ON
Thread moved from Christian Apologetics.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[keyarch]

If the age of the earth is 6000 yrs, what was God doing before then?

The simple answer is, that He was creating the Heavens (universe) along with the earth (unfinished).

The longer answer:
There was a "Beginning" of what God's work (in the universe), and there was a beginning of events to complete the earth (starting with light on the surface in Day 1). A lot of people try to group these together, and that is what causes the "Age" old question.

We know that the "Beginning" was - Proverbs 8:22-23 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth."

We also know that day one of the creation week started with Genesis 1:3. So everything in Genesis 1:1-2 was before that first day (some 6,000 years ago). This includes all the upper heavens, the earth with the foundations covered in water and a thick cloud layer, Angels, Wisdom, etc.

Also, Genesis 2:4 is saying that 'This is the history of the creation of the Heavens (universe) and the earth (materials), in the day (general period) He "made" (worked on) the earth and the heavens (earth's atmosphere).

Genesis 1:16 is referencing the sun and moon and their placement around the earth to give light along with the stars (that were already there).

Exodus 20:11 is stating that for six days God worked on the heaven (same as Gen. 1:16) and the earth and sea and all that's in them (not all that's in the universe). The passage does not say (in Hebrew) that 'For in six days God created the heavens.....' This passage is used all the time to argue for the universe being created 6000 years ago, and it's just wrong. The formation of our planet into a habitable place and creation of life is the "young" part, not the minerals of the earth.

 

[granpa]

the 'deep' referred to in genesis is a 'deep thing', i.e. a hole.
this same 'hole' is referred to in revelation where it is called the 'abyss'.
It is sheol or hades.
It is a black hole.

In both descriptions it represents utter hopelessness.
From that hopelessness light suddenly emerges.
(and in revelation a great swarm of angelic 'locusts' emerge that pursue the fourth horseman and torment those with the mark of the beast)

 

[marktheblake]

If the age of the earth is 6000 yrs, what was God doing before then?

"Before" is a limitation of time (and Space and Matter) all created by God.

As God created the universe he therefore exists outside of time, there is no relevance to that question. There is no before or after in regards to God.

 

[good brother]

The simple answer is, that He was creating the Heavens (universe) along with the earth (unfinished).

The longer answer:
There was a "Beginning" of what God's work (in the universe), and there was a beginning of events to complete the earth (starting with light on the surface in Day 1). A lot of people try to group these together, and that is what causes the "Age" old question.

We know that the "Beginning" was - Proverbs 8:22-23 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth."

We also know that day one of the creation week started with Genesis 1:3. So everything in Genesis 1:1-2 was before that first day (some 6,000 years ago). This includes all the upper heavens, the earth with the foundations covered in water and a thick cloud layer, Angels, Wisdom, etc.

Also, Genesis 2:4 is saying that 'This is the history of the creation of the Heavens (universe) and the earth (materials), in the day (general period) He "made" (worked on) the earth and the heavens (earth's atmosphere).

Genesis 1:16 is referencing the sun and moon and their placement around the earth to give light along with the stars (that were already there).

Exodus 20:11 is stating that for six days God worked on the heaven (same as Gen. 1:16) and the earth and sea and all that's in them (not all that's in the universe). The passage does not say (in Hebrew) that 'For in six days God created the heavens.....' This passage is used all the time to argue for the universe being created 6000 years ago, and it's just wrong. The formation of our planet into a habitable place and creation of life is the "young" part, not the minerals of the earth.

You read an awful lot in between the lines and the verse numbers. You must remember that for a very long time there were no chapter or verse breaks. It just read (much like a story). In the original Hebrew there is also no punctuation marks to speak of, so separating Genesis 1:1-2 from Genesis 1:3 (and onward) is like separating flour from water after it has been thoroughly mixed. Why doesnt anyone read it like it appears on the page? It seems that would be the most obvious reading.

 

[marktheblake]

so separating Genesis 1:1-2 from Genesis 1:3 (and onward) is like separating flour from water after it has been thoroughly mixed.

It doesnt matter that the verse numbers were not written in the original texts, they are just reference points, It remains irrelevant to whether Day one started at Gen 1.1 or 1.3

 

[Yekcidmij]

You read an awful lot in between the lines and the verse numbers. You must remember that for a very long time there were no chapter or verse breaks. It just read (much like a story). In the original Hebrew there is also no punctuation marks to speak of, so separating Genesis 1:1-2 from Genesis 1:3 (and onward) is like separating flour from water after it has been thoroughly mixed. Why doesnt anyone read it like it appears on the page? It seems that would be the most obvious reading.

You make several unfounded assumptions here. First, who's to say that there was no break between 1:2 and 1:3 in the original document? Why do you say that the author himself didn't intend 1:1-2 to be some sort of title (perhaps in the same way that the toledoth are elsewhere in Genesis)? Second, you are somewhat incorrect about the punctuation. The Masoretic Text, which your Old Testament uses, does have punctuation marks. For example, פ , marks a break in paragraphs and : denotes a verse marker. It's a mistake to appeal to what the original document must have looked like since we have no idea what it looked like. Who's to say they wrote just like we do? Why couldn't an original documet look something like this:

(that's the Talmud in Hebrew, btw).

Bottom line is that you cannot appeal to what the original documents looked like in an effort to support your case. We really don't know what the original documents looked like (or what symbols and notations were used in the original text) as the only thing we have in Hebrew from this period of time are inscriptions on pottery and stone.


And even if the original document was written in the same manner as later Greek manuscripts (all capital letters, no spacing, no punctuation, no paragraph breaks), that really doesn't mean anything as far as how to interpret the passages themselves. Writing like that was done to conserve space as writing materials were expensive. What really mattered was how the passage was to be read aloud and understood. And for that we must investigate what the author intended, not necessarily the manner in which it was scribed.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think his point about verse lines and stuff is sound, regardless of errors in appeal to the original manuscripts.

People like to cite individual sections or verses all the time. And the way that Bibles are broken up with little headings above passages throws me off too. It's like spoon feeding what the passage is supposed to convey, even though that's not the only thing a passage is talking about.

Heck, sometimes I don't even know how they come up with those little headings. You might have 2 verses that support it and the rest refer back to something earlier in the book. I really wish someone would print a Bible without all that junk. It would force us to reason and make assertions based on the context of the whole book and not just some little asides. Often times we develop entire doctrines about a verse or two that, when actually looked at in scale, don't even comprise an entire sentence...

Sorry to get off topic.

 

[jonathan180iq]

"Before" is a limitation of time (and Space and Matter) all created by God.

As God created the universe he therefore exists outside of time, there is no relevance to that question. There is no before or after in regards to God.

Actually, time exists regardless of our ability to measure it or our existence within it.

 

[marktheblake]

Actually, time exists regardless of our ability to measure it or our existence within it.

Yes of course time exists, God created it, I even said that. The relevance of Time to us is irrelevant as I was talking about God.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes of course time exists, God created it, I even said that. The relevance of Time to us is irrelevant as I was talking about God.

Right, but wasn't your point that time didn't exist until God created it? And that God created everything in that 6-day span?

Even if we assume the literal 6 day span, it doesn't mean that time doesn't predate the creation of the Earth. It took time for God gather "materials" and it took time for God to create things, right? I mean there is obviously a time before God's spirit moved upon the waters because the waters are there in the first place. And if there is a time before that...then there must also be time before that time. Did God make heaven? Or does Heaven pre-exist? Is it eternal? Because if it's created, there is a time for making that too, even though it doesn't show up in scripture.

See what I mean?

 

[marktheblake]

Right, but wasn't your point that time didn't exist until God created it?

Correct, unless of course you can explain how time existed before there was matter and space.

Even if we assume the literal 6 day span, it doesn't mean that time doesn't predate the creation of the Earth. It took time for God gather "materials" and it took time for God to create things, right?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Time starts now.

I mean there is obviously a time before God's spirit moved upon the waters because the waters are there in the first place.

correct, one could argue that there was a length of time that passed in between Gen 1.1 and 1.2. From the YEC framework there is no need to impose that on the text.

Did God make heaven? Or does Heaven pre-exist?

I am pretty sure heavens in Gen 1.1 means the Universe. So we would have to agree that Heaven exists outside of the universe.

See what I mean?

you are still back to the original point, if God created time then there was no time before he created it, and he must then exist outside of time.

 

[jonathan180iq]

you are still back to the original point, if God created time then there was no time before he created it, and he must then exist outside of time.

I think you and I are reading the same book but we are in different chapters.

I agree that God created the time that we reference. Our way of measuring time is based on the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun. The watch on my wrist is telling me what time it is based on this planet and our reference to where we are in the solar system.

Time anywhere else in the universe is completely different. Measurements of seconds and hours and days and months and years can be vastly different based on where you were. Even in our own neighborhood, a Venus minute and an Earth minute are not equal. (Venus days are like 243 Earth days...)

Universal time exists, ragardless of our ability to measure... it and we have no way to measure it. Time itself didn't start when God created the Earth. You and I will always think in Earth time and when we read Genesis we are trying to reconcile our understanding of time with God's time. Time is an ever-present thing. It has always existed and I don't believe that God exists outside of time; He just exists outside of our time. There is a time frame upon which God operates. We just don't understand it or know what it is because we have no reference. We will be forever confined to understanding time from a finite point of view.

 

[Jig]

If the age of the earth is 6000 yrs, what was God doing before then?

He was existing contently.