Creation

It should be noted that the phrase "the heavens and the earth" (Heb: et ha-shamayyim w-et ha-'aretz) is a Hebrew idiom, meaning "everything". A good translation of Gen 1:1 would thus be, "in the beginning, God created everything" or "in the beginning, God created the universe".(This figure of speech is usually called a "merism". Two extremes are mentioned, with the implication that everything in between is included as well. Thus "heavens and earth" means "everything"; "east and west" means "everywhere".)

ICANT, I think it pushes the text a bit too far to insist that the universe began "in a light period". The phrase "in the day that x" is an idiom, simply meaning "when". (And most modern translations translate Gen 2:4 in this way.)I don't see any inconsistency with science on this point, but I don't see a confirmation, either.

Unfortunately, I don't know of a Hebrew (or Greek) grammar that has a very complete list of idioms. If you find one, please let me know!As you probably know, the classic (and massive) work on biblical figures of speech is E.W. Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" (Figures of speech used in the Bible: : Bullinger, E. W. (Ethelbert William), 1837-1913 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive). But for specific passages it's probably easier to check his "Companion Bible".You can also look up individual figures of speech in an encyclopedia or Wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, "heavens and earth" in Gen 1:1 is generally classed as a "merism" (though I think Bullinger classed it as "synecdoche"). Here's what Wikipedia says about merisms:

quote:

---

Merisms are conspicuous features of Biblical poetry. For example, in Genesis 1:1, when God creates "the heavens and the earth" (KJV), the two parts combine to indicate that God created the whole universe. Similarly, in Psalm 139, the psalmist declares that God knows "my downsitting and mine uprising", indicating that God knows all the psalmist's actions. In addition, Genesis 1:5 uses "evening" and "morning" as a merism for "one day".

---

Check Bullinger's works. He starts identifying figures of speech in Gen 1:1. For "in the day" in 2:4, Bullinger has a note in his "Companion Bible" that says "in the day = when". Other study bibles do something similar. As Jar pointed out, these are NAMES (proper nouns). The first three days of Gen 1 involve naming. If we don't distinguish between the proper nouns (names) and the ordinary nouns, we will get confused.For example, a "day" (lower-case d) contains both morning and evening, both a light and a dark period. The light period is named "Day" (upper-case D). Thus "Day" (the light period) is not the same as "day" (the full day, including more than just "Day"). Likewise, the "firmament" is placed in the heavens to separate the waters above it from the waters below it. This firmament is then named "Heavens". Thus "Heavens" (the firmament) is not the same as "heavens" (which includes more than just the firmament).

Not necessarily. The best resource that I know of for figures of speech is not a grammar text, but Bullinger. No. I agree; Gen 1 is narrative, not poetry. But it is highly stylized and highly structured narrative. Although it is not poetry, it contains numerous poetic elements such as imagery, figures of speech, and repetition.

What makes them proper nouns is the fact that they are names for things. The text says that God called (קָרָא ) the light "Day". If you look up קָרָא in BDB, you'll see under the Qal stem:

quote:

---

6. call = name
a. (early and most common usage), call one’s name (שֵׁם ) so and so

---

I agree that Hebrew does not have upper case. But it does have names (proper nouns). And we use upper case in English to denote these names.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

While I don't agree with jar's denigrating descriptions of divinely inspired Scripture, I agree with the gist of what he says here. The early chapters of Genesis emphasize Sabbath (and also Temple). The creation has been put into a seven-day structure in order to model the human work week and Sabbath (see Ex 20). But the Sabbath emphasis is already present in Gen 1:1 (Count the words in Hebrew; there are seven. The same thing could have been said in five words.)In addition, there is a Temple emphasis in the first few chapters of Genesis. As some biblical scholars have noted, Eden seems to be a sort of cosmic temple. Man is told to "tend and keep" the garden; these same verbs are used of priestly temple duties later. I disagree; there's a LOT more in the text than this!For one thing, there is a strong polemic against pagan sun and moon gods. After the strong emphasis on "naming" things in the first three days, the sun and moon are buried in the middle of the account (on day 4) and are NOT named, but just described as the "greater" and the "lesser" lights. This "dissing" of the sun and moon stresses the fact that they are merely created objects, not deities.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

They are there in BDB, as you can check. They are variations of "to call, proclaim", which is the main meaning of the word. But for its use in the first three days of Gen 1, definition 6 is the appropriate one. I assume you have a copy of "GKC" (Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar)? I believe it is public domain and is available online in a few places. It has a section on "proper names":

quote:

---

125. Determination of Nouns in general. Determination of Proper Names.
Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 466 ff.

​

[ 125a] 1. A noun may either be determinate in itself, as a proper name or pronoun (see below, d and i), or be made so by its context. In the latter case, the determination may be effected either by prefixing the article (see 126), or by the connexion of the noun (in the construct state) with a following determinate genitive, and consequently also (according to 33 c) by its union with a pronominal suffix ( 127 a). It is to be taken as a fundamental rule, that the determination can only be effected in one of the ways here mentioned; the article cannot be prefixed to a proper name, nor to a noun followed by the genitive, nor can a proper name be used in the construct state. Deviations from this rule are either only apparent or have arisen from a corruption of the text.

​

[ 125d] 2. Real proper nouns, as being the names of things (or persons) only once met with, are sufficiently determinate in themselves. Such names, therefore, as ‏יהוה‎, ‏דָּוִד‎, ‏יַעֲקֹב‎, ‏כְּנַעַז‎, ‏סְדֹּם do not admit of the article, nor can they be in the construct state. On the other hand, not only gentilic names (as denoting the various individuals belonging to the same class), but also all those proper names, of which the appellative sense is still sufficiently evident to the mind, or at least has been handed down from an earlier period of the language, frequently (often even as a rule) take the article (according to 126 e), and may even be followed by a genitive.

​

[ 125i] 3. Of the pronouns, the personal pronouns proper (the separate pronouns, 32) are always determinate in themselves, since they can denote only definite individuals (the 3rd person, also definite things). For the same reason the demonstrative pronouns ( 34) are also determinate in themselves, when they stand alone (as equivalent to substantives), either as subject (Gn 5:29) or as predicate (e. g. זֶה הַיּוֹם this is the day, Ju 4:14; ‏אֵלֶּה חַדְּבָרִים these are the words, Dt 1:1), or as object (e. g. ‏אֶר-זֹאת‎ 2 S 13:17), or as genitive (‏מְחִיר זֶה‎ 1 K 21:2), or finally when joined to a preposition (‏לְזֹאת‎ Gn 2:23; ‏בָּזֶה 1 S 16:8, see 102 g).

---

ICANT's view of Gen 1:1 is pretty standard, and is probably the majority view among Evangelicals (see Word Biblical Commentary for a very good discussion of the grammatical issues). I agree with ICANT that this is the best fit to the Hebrew grammar. Verse 1 seems to be an independent clause, describing something that happened. Verse 2 is a circumstantial clause, essentially an "aside" to the story. The story picks up again in verse 3, with a waw-consecutive or preterite form, "and then". Thus the grammar implies that first God created the universe, and then later He said "let there be light" etc.Not everyone agrees, though. Some (e.g. Bruce Waltke) see verse 1 as a heading or title for the whole account (as does NoNukes). This creates some tension with the grammar of the Hebrew text, and is usually supported by similarity to other ancient near eastern creation accounts rather than by the text itself.(Most Jewish scholars see verse 1 in a third way. Following Rashi, they see verse 1 as a dependent rather than an independent clause, and translate it as "in the beginning of God's creation of the universe" or "when God began creating the universe".)Even if one agrees with ICANT (and me) that the universe was created prior to "let there be light", there are a number of different ways to explain verse 2. ICANT takes a version of the Gap theory (or ruin-reconstruction theory); the darkness and water in verse 2 is a result of divine judgment. This view probably DID begin as a response to modern science, in the 1800's (with Chalmers, if I recall correctly).The other common way to see verse 2 (given ICANT's and my view of verse 1) is to see everything created in verse 1, but not quite finished. The rest of the account describes the "finishing" of what was "roughed out" in verse 1. I lean toward this view.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Though few hold to the Gap Theory today, it is hard to overemphasize its historical importance. For about a century, from the mid-1800's to the mid-1900's, this was the dominant view among conservative Protestants. Most conservative Protestant Bible teachers, preachers, and theologians during this time held to it. (Contrary to popular opinion today, William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes Trial held to the Gap Theory, not to YEC.)The Gap Theory allowed people to accept an old geology along with a recent re-creation of the universe in six literal days. This worked even with old animal fossils (they were part of the original creation which had been destroyed). But hominids, early man, and early civilizations started to create complications for the Gap Theory. Most YECs today view the Gap Theory as a "compromised" interpretation of the Bible, adversely influenced by modern science.So far as I know, the only biblical evidence for a divine judgment between verses 1 and 2 is inferential. This is based on the passages that ICANT already mentioned, and on the view that "tohu va-vohu" ("formless and void") is a negative description, implying something bad, like divine judgment.

I agree with your conclusion. But the first word of the text ("in beginning") is awkward: it doesn't have a definite article. Its form is the same as the construct would be, "in the beginning of..." This is what leads Rashi and others to translate it as "in the beginning of the creation of God", I.e. "In the beginning of God's creation/creating". But this requires changing the vowels on "created" which is written as a Qal verb, not a noun "creation" or participle "creating". Thanks for the information! I didn't realize that the roots of the Gap Theory went back so far.

I'm not sure what the Gap Theory folks thought about the Flood. I suspect that there were a variety of views. Some Gap Theory adherents probably held to a miraculous global flood (but NOT to "flood geology"). Others probably held to a local flood.The Gap Theory certainly accepts plant and animal death before the Fall. Scripture attributes HUMAN death to the Fall (Rom 5), but the notion that ANIMAL death is also a result of the Fall is an inference which I would dispute.If you want to investigate these issues further, I suggest looking at the writings of D.G. Barnhouse, M.R.DeHann, Arno Gaebelein, H.A. Ironside, J. Vernon McGee, C.I. Scofield, or C.H. Spurgeon, all of whom held to the Gap Theory.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Yes, but the vowels will be different. If there is no definite article, the vowel under the Beit is short (shewa'). If there is a definite article, the article is assimilated into the Beit and the vowel which would have been under the article (patah or qamets) goes under the Beit. The first word of the text has a short vowel (shewa') under the Beit, so there is no assimilated article in the word. (http://hebrew4christians.com/...nseparable_prepositions.html)We agree that the vowels were originally not written. But they were spoken, even though they were not written. The Masoretes invented the written vowels in order to preserve the correct pronunciation. Is it possible that the Masoretes got the vowels wrong? Yes. But is it likely that they got them wrong on the very first verse of the sacred text? I doubt it. The first verse is the most likely to have its pronunciation remembered and passed down correctly. Yes, the Gap Theory certainly predates the Theory of Evolution. Chalmers may have been motivated in part by Lyell, but not by Darwin or evolution. But as you have explained, the roots of the Gap Theory go back even further, long before the rise of modern science.

I recommend Word Biblical Commentary on Gen 1:1-2. It explains the grammatical issues pretty thoroughly and goes through all of the major options in a fairly objective way, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each view.

Agreed. The LETTERS were (and are) all consonants. There were and are no vowel LETTERS.But do you think the ancient Hebrews had no vowel SOUNDS? Do you think it is possible to speak the consonants in your avatar without introducing vowel sounds? No.While there were no vowel LETTERS, there were still vowel SOUNDS. This is what the Masoretes tried to preserve.