In the beginning, but which beginning?

which promotes this theory is Earth’s Earliest Ages by G. H. Pember, first published in 1884.

This theory is so obviously unsatisfactory that most scholars have abandoned it. It has many flaws, both biblical and scientific. For example, Exodus 20:11 says, ‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them …’ Also, the Hebrew does not allow a gap between the first two verses, nor does it allow the meaning required in the second verse. Furthermore, the theory makes no sense geologically.  ¹Gurney, R. J. M. (2007). Six Day Creation: Does it matter what you believe? (pp. 43–44). Day One Publications.

Yes – so many problems. I came across it while doing research on Satan.

Is “In the beginning” a question of grammar?

There are a few theories about different meanings behind “In the beginning” and what happened before/after those three words.

I find it disappointing when interpretations, and the subsequent arguments, come down to a disagreement over grammar, for a couple reasons.

• First, I understand the Bible is the inspired word of God. But, did God give them perfect grammar when they wrote His word? Is that grammar still widely used today, r has it changed over time? Words have different meanings in different times, different cultures, etc. Were there even strict grammar rules back then?
  Looking at the people who wrote these books, I feel like it’s now a bunch of Ph.D. scholars looking over the work of people who were not all that educated, and determining their intent based on things they didn’t even know.
• Second, I’m no grammar expert. I do end up looking up grammar-related items more than I’d like. But those are for Hebrew and Greek. When it comes to English, I do use a grammar checker, believe it or not. I use a spell checker too. So much for artificial intelligence being good at spelling and grammar. BTW – that, in a way, helps to make my first point.
  Anyway, I don’t put a lot of effort into using perfect grammar when I speak. And I pretty much write the way I speak. That’s why there’s so many contractions. I’ve known people who write and speak perfect (as far as I can tell) English, and it’s just plain weird. They sound condescending, as if they’re letting you know by their words that they’re smarter than you. So, once a gain, I wonder if it’s realistic to look to many of the Bible authors and expect a grammar examination to be a good way to figure out what they meant.

But, it is what it is, and grammar seems to be the way the different views of creation are derived. Therefore, we have to look at it in that manner.

Two high level views of In the beginning

This will get broken out in a moment, but here’s a simple way of showing the grammar issues.

1:1 In the beginning Genesis opens with the Hebrew phrase bere’shith, typically translated as “in the beginning.” There are two possible interpretations of this phrase: a specific, absolute beginning of all time; or a nonspecific, general beginning of God’s work of creation.  ²Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., Whitehead, M. M., Grigoni, M. R., & Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Ge 1:1). Lexham Press.

That explanation leaves out the word grammar, but grammar is what it comes down to. As we’ll soon see though, there are important Biblical implications based on which one we choose to believe. I often write about how we have to know what we believe and why we believe it.

Yes, hopefully we pray to the Holy Spirit for answers. But even a cursory look at the state of Christian denominations shows that our own biases, whatever the sources, still affect what we believe. So, don’t just follow me either. Examine for yourself. My goal is to present what’s out there. Along the way, I’ll tell you what I think, sometimes what different denominations teach, but it’s still up to you.

A scholarly look at In the beginning – with added thoughts

We’ll go through one of those intense grammatical examinations. Along the way, I’ll do my best to try to translate that into regular people’s English. If you’re reading a translation of this into another language, I hope it works.

A simple interpretation

The account of the creation of the world by God is stated in the most brief, most complete, or most exalted way. The opening words in Genesis have caused much discussion: In the beginning God created … (Gen. 1:1). This traditional translation makes the phrase an independent clause. It affirms that everything that came into being afterwards was entirely God’s work.

If only we could just agree on this and move on. It does get to the heart of the matter. Namely, our belief as Christians that God created everything. And, it was done at the beginning, with the traditional meaning that the beginning is the beginning of time, as we know it.

But, it’s not that simple. When scholars get involved, they can’t seem to let anything be simple. And so, we go on.

Is creation an ordinary event that occurs frequently?

Many scholars have noted the same arrangement of words in many other ancient documents that use a similar phrase as is found in Genesis 1:1, and it is translated as a dependent clause.

I want to point out a couple things about this statement.

• The Bible isn’t just any ancient document. Trying to turn God’s Word into something modeled on ancient pagan documents seems like an invitation for not understanding God’s intent with these words.
• Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created …, isn’t like anything else, anywhere. It’s not similar to anything. It’s God telling us He created everything. It’s not something that happens on a regular basis. So, again, we’re heading for misunderstanding if we try to turn In the beginning God created … into something ordinary.

If we make a change …

These scholars insist the more correct translation is “When God began to create the heavens and the earth.…”

In the beginning – or – when God began to create. Which is it? Does it matter? Aren’t they the same? When you begin to do something, isn’t that the beginning?

Apparently not. This is where grammar comes in. I wonder how many of us have used these same concepts – the beginning of something or when something began – and assumed they meant the same thing?

Here’s what the scholarly change does to In the beginning.

But this makes the second verse read, “The earth [already] was formless and void.” This would suggest that when God began His creative task, He started with matter that already existed.

Who knew? It totally changes the traditional belief that most of us probably have about God. Christians usually think of tnhe act of creation as God creating everything from nothing.

Here’s a somewhat formal write-up of that thinking.

Creation ex nihilo (“from nothing”) is the unique act by which God founded all creaturely reality—an act undertaken without any external aid or non-divine condition, including preexisting matter.

Christians first began emphasizing creation “ex nihilo” as a means of upholding the Bible’s teaching on the absolute sovereignty of God over creation. Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, argued that if matter were uncreated, then God’s authority as the sole ground of all that exists would be diminished; God would, in other words, exist alongside, rather than above, creation. By contrast, Scripture consistently depicts God as occupying a position of utterly unique sovereignty over creation (see, for instance, Job 38–40), having no rival and thus reigning over all unconditionally. Consequently, when creation texts such as Genesis 1:1–3 and John 1:1–4 are read in the light of these pervasive scriptural themes, the Christian doctrine of creation from nothing is judged to be a faithful interpretation of the scriptural notion that creation arose solely “by the word of the Lord” (Ps 33:6; Heb 11:3).

Notice: Christians first began emphasizing creation “ex nihilo” as a means of upholding the Bible’s teaching on the absolute sovereignty of God over creation. Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, argued that if matter were uncreated, then God’s authority as the sole ground of all that exists would be diminished; God would, in other words, exist alongside, rather than above, creation.

I don’t know where/when formal logic came into use, but that fear isn’t necessarily true. There’s nothing in the Bible to indicate the following is what happened. At the same time, there’s also nothing to indicate it isn’t possible. My reason for including it here is to try to show that this fear of God not being the sole creator of everything isn’t based on the interpretation of In the beginning… versus when God began to create.

Here’s something to consider. What if God had done some acts of creation before time, as we know, came into existence? In other words, some act of creation before the events in Genesis 1?

Put another way, what if Genesis 1:2 – Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters – tells us of the state of God’s creation work to this point. Then this describes conditions at the point where time began.

You see, we don’t have to assume that if anything took place before Genesis 1:1 that God didn’t do it! We believe God existed forever into the past and will continue to exist forever into the future. In other words, eternally. Past, present, and future. The Alpha and the Omega.

Why do believe that nothing happened, forever into the past, until God created everything/anything in our universe, or anyplace else? We know His abode, Heaven, existed before creation began. We even know that the lake of fire, the place of eternal damnation, was also created before earth. Remember this verse in the middle of The Sheep and the Goats in Matthew’s Gospel:

The Sheep and the Goats

…
Mt 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
…

Yes, Hell was created not for people, but for the devil and the other fallen angels.

So we take the fear – This would suggest that when God began His creative task, He started with matter that already existed – and see that the conclusion in it isn’t a concern. Yes, it might suggest that. But it doesn’t come as a given. And let’s face it, people who don’t want to believe God created everything aren’t going to believe it, no matter what.

By refusing the possibility that God has already created something before what we read in Genesis 1:1 out of hand, with no discussion, could be putting God in a box. We just don’t know what God did or when He did it. Must we really insist that we understand it all? That we know what’s right and wrong about the possibilities surrounding the creation of our universe?

Or, can we keep our eyes, minds, and hearts on the paragraph we began with (no pun intended)/

The account of the creation of the world by God is stated in the most brief, most complete, or most exalted way. The opening words in Genesis have caused much discussion: In the beginning God created … (Gen. 1:1). This traditional translation makes the phrase an independent clause. It affirms that everything that came into being afterwards was entirely God’s work.

Part of the early concerns over the meaning of In the beginning could also come from:

Jewish and Christian teaching on this topic represented a sharp break from many of the philosophical and theological options available at the time of its earliest formulation. In the ancient Near East, creation myths often presented non-divine reality as the consequence of some kind of primordial struggle amongst the gods, as in the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, or in terms of the taming of primeval chaos, as in many early Egyptian cosmogonies. The Genesis account, by contrast, attributes the material cause of creation solely to God’s Word: “And God said … and there was …’  ³Stratis, J. (2018). Creation ex nihilo. In M. Ward, J. Parks, B. Ellis, & T. Hains (Eds.), Lexham Survey of Theology. Lexham Press.

Maybe it was easier to insist on a translation and meaning of the first verses of Genesis being something that couldn’t possibly be mixed up with pagan beliefs of the time. Judaism was so different from anything else back then.

Even in the 7th century, Muhammad believed, as Islam still teaches today, that Christians believe in more than one God.

To that end, let’s continue with the scholarly view.

This view has pagan origins, for in early literature, things like salt water, fresh water, silt, and sky were gods that brought all things into being. Nothing was indicated about their origin. Nor should one expect such insight, for the gods were created in man’s image. This reverses the biblical account where man was created in God’s image.

The desire to not get mixed up with pagan beliefs, or to overshadow/replace pagan beliefs was strong. Even Christmas, when we celebrate Jesus’ birth, was timed to coincide with pagan beliefs. From the Bible itself, Jesus’ birth in December, the middle of winter, is a non-starter.

Tradition is hard to overcome. However, that doesn’t mean we should just blindly follow it. Insist one thing, no matter what. On the other hand, it also doesn’t mean we should wipe out tradition just for the sake of scholarly exercises.

God gave us minds. We should use them. God also gave us the Holy Spirit. And we should use Him as well. Then, we can begin to have a better understanding of His word.

Having said that, we must also remember:

The account of the creation of the world by God is stated in the most brief, most complete, or most exalted way. The opening words in Genesis have caused much discussion: In the beginning God created … (Gen. 1:1). This traditional translation makes the phrase an independent clause. It affirms that everything that came into being afterwards was entirely God’s work.

Once again, let’s move on.

The biblical record did not come from the mind of a human author, but came through it. God used each writer’s vocabulary, typical expressions, and writing style, but the Lord of all inspired what was written. So it is not a matter of what man thinks; it is rather what God intended the translation to be.

Again, if only it could be that simple. It’s hard to remove our previous understandings/beliefs and change them, even when presented with the truth. And it can be hard to recognize the truth because of pre-existing biases.

If one translates Genesis 1:1 as a dependent clause, then the truth that God predated everything is not supported. That God alone existed when He decided to create the world is a truth found throughout the Bible. For example, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3; see also Psalm 33:6, 9; John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2; 6:5; 2 Peter 3:5; Romans 4:17). If the beginning phrase of Genesis 1:2 was intended to be a dependent clause, then, in order to blend with the truth elsewhere in the Bible, we must translate it “By way of beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

We’ve been through this before. From a logic point of view, that first statement isn’t valid.

If one translates Genesis 1:1 as a dependent clause, then the truth that God predated everything is not supported.

Using that wording may require us to explicitly state that whatever happened in the dependent clause – in Genesis 1:1 – was done by God and anything existing was also created by God.

But we don’t do that with the angels. We don’t have a problem just saying the angels were created by God. We don’t have a problem saying Heaven, God’s abode, was created by Him. It seems to only be our own universe that’s the issue.

Why? Is it the pagan belief systems? If we truly believe God created everything, why can’t we just believe it, make it the prerequisite we believe it to be, and not make problems?

The Hebrew verb that describes God’s activity at this time is bara. Never is this word used in Scripture to express man’s action. It is always used to describe God’s work in creating, since He is the only one who can bring something out of nothing. Additionally, if He starts with something He has at that moment already created, the verb is changed to formed as with Adam, or built as with Eve.
This opening verse lifts us to heaven and allows us to observe God in His initial act of speaking the universe into existence, for in the expression of the heavens and the earth, the universe as we know it today is intended.

Let’s examine these statements. Specifically, are three words really used as described? Of course, we need to look at the Hebrew words, not the English words. We’ll look at the Hebrew words for created (the heavens and the earth – Gen 1:1), formed (Adam – Gen 2:8), and make (Eve – Gen 2:18).

created:

1254 בָּרָא, בָּרָא, בָּרָא [baraʾ /baw·raw/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 278; GK 1343 and 1344 and 1345; 54 occurrences; AV translates as “create” 42 times, “creator” three times, “choose” twice, “make” twice, “cut down” twice, “dispatch” once, “done” once, and “make fat” once. 1 to create, shape, form. 1A (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject). 1A1 of heaven and earth. 1A2 of individual man. 1A3 of new conditions and circumstances. 1A4 of transformations. 1B (Niphal) to be created. 1B1 of heaven and earth. 1B2 of birth. 1B3 of something new. 1B4 of miracles. 1C (Piel). 1C1 to cut down. 1C2 to cut out. 2 to be fat. 2A (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat.  ⁴Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

formed:

3335 יׄוצֵר, יָצַר [yatsar /yaw·tsar/] v. Probably identical with 3334 (through the squeezing into shape), ([compare 3331]); TWOT 898; GK 3450 and 3670; 62 occurrences; AV translates as “form” 26 times, “potter” 17 times, “fashion” five times, “maker” four times, “frame” three times, “make” three times, “former” twice, “earthen” once, and “purposed” once. 1 to form, fashion, frame. 1A (Qal) to form, fashion. 1A1 of human activity. 1A2 of divine activity. 1A2A of creation. 1A2A1 of original creation. 1A2A2 of individuals at conception. 1A2A3 of Israel as a people. 1A2B to frame, pre-ordain, plan (fig. of divine) purpose of a situation). 1B (Niphal) to be formed, be created. 1C (Pual) to be predetermined, be pre-ordained. 1D (Hophal) to be formed.  ⁵Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

make:

6213 עָשָׂה, עָשָׂה [ʿasah /aw·saw/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 1708, 1709; GK 6913 and 6914; 2633 occurrences; AV translates as “do” 1333 times, “make” 653 times, “wrought” 52 times, “deal” 52 times, “commit” 49 times, “offer” 49 times, “execute” 48 times, “keep” 48 times, “shew” 43 times, “prepare” 37 times, “work” 29 times, “do so” 21 times, “perform” 18 times, “get” 14 times, “dress” 13 times, “maker” 13 times, “maintain” seven times, and translated miscellaneously 154 times. 1 to do, fashion, accomplish, make. 1A (Qal). 1A1 to do, work, make, produce. 1A1A to do. 1A1B to work. 1A1C to deal (with). 1A1D to act, act with effect, effect. 1A2 to make. 1A2A to make. 1A2B to produce. 1A2C to prepare. 1A2D to make (an offering). 1A2E to attend to, put in order. 1A2F to observe, celebrate. 1A2G to acquire (property). 1A2H to appoint, ordain, institute. 1A2I to bring about. 1A2J to use. 1A2K to spend, pass. 1B (Niphal). 1B1 to be done. 1B2 to be made. 1B3 to be produced. 1B4 to be offered. 1B5 to be observed. 1B6 to be used. 1C (Pual) to be made. 2 (Piel) to press, squeeze.  ⁶Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

The usage of the Hebrew words does appear to hold. That’s true for the definitions and for verses in which forms of the Hebrew word are used.

However, this is going to bring about some interesting things when we get into some of the individual acts of creation. So hang on to the thoughts here for those three words. I’ll let you know when the Hebrew words are behind the translations as we read them. Then we can see the implications and continue to examine this issue of how to view the first couple verses in Genesis.

Let’s move on again.

Did God create other worlds with intelligent life on them? It could be, but if He did, each had its own revelation, like the Bible God gave people on earth. Our sacred Word is intended exclusively for us so that we can know how God prepared the way for both our first parents and, ultimately, for our own births. Indeed, we were in God’s mind as much as were Adam and Eve.

I don’t know. Is this for real? Or is this arrogance? The potential problem comes in if there’s intelligent life someplace else in our universe. If, I repeat if, there is, then some portion of the original of our universe, some portion of the creations of the heavens, seems like something we’d share in common.

I only bring this aup because, again if there is other intelligent life in our universe, then that shared portion is likely to be the initial part where the whole discussion of dependent and independent clauses comes up.

Therefore, that question of dependent/independent could be a big deal and shouldn’t be dismissed so easily.

Another reason to not necessarily dismiss alternatives so easily is that we don’t want to put God in a box that we defined and created.

The earth at that time was in a state of formlessness, emptiness, and darkness. It had the appearance of a trackless waste where nothing lived, nothing roamed, nothing grew, and nothing could happen by itself. As Job observed, God had suspended the mass of “the earth over nothing” (Job 26:7).
When did all God’s creative activity take place? Had He yet set the clock? The Bible does not say.

When time, as we know it, began is an issue right from the top. We don’t know for sure when that clock started. I don’t see why we need to know, so I don’t see that as a problem.

And the final piece:

Many people claim God created the world only six thousand years ago. But much evidence continues to emerge that argues for a much earlier creation. Archaeologists confirm that pottery, formed by hand, sometimes painted by hand and baked in a kiln, strongly suggests the existence of a sixth millennium B.C. period.

While anything God created would have had the appearance of age, it does seem unlikely that He would have created such things as fired pottery, put it in a buried context to make it appear older than it really was, so that people who would declare the numerous time measuring devices which operate by laws He created are all in error, and by so doing express great faith by affirming, without any supporting evidence, that the pottery was really made and used at a much later period of time. ⁷Williams, W. G. (1999). Genesis: A Commentary for Bible Students (pp. 27–29). Wesleyan Publishing House.

I can’t help but wonder about While anything God created would have had the appearance of age, it does seem unlikely that He would have created such things as fired pottery …

Why not? Let’s say, the earth really does have a short life, whether that be a few thousand years or the literal six days. Certainly, God could have done either of these. Or our universe could be billions of years old. An all-powerful God could do any of the above.

I think the bigger issue, which we’ll get to, is the question of what dt do with human-like creatures that predate Adam according to the genealogy laid out in the Bible. But that’s for a later day. We will get there.

Conclusion – In the beginning, but which beginning?

Ultimately, have we decided anything? No, not really. A lot of questions were raised. There are lots of issues to look into as we proceed. And we will.

Will we have an answer by the end of chapter one? Maybe. Or maybe we’ll have more questions.

And we can’t stop at chapter one, since there still the seventh “day” and the expanded look at forming/making Adam and Eve.

---

---

Images by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

---