Landmark Baptist

There a number of language considerations to reckon with to arrive at a proper understanding of Genesis One. An important one is the use of Waw Consecutive. Beginning with Genesis 1:3 Waw Consecutive is employed in each succeeding verse of the chapter which underscores that what is about to be said is intricately dependent upon what has been said. In other words a continuing story. However Waw Consecutive is not employed at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 because there is no intricate linkage. Genesis 1:1 is a complete story in itself. Genesis 1:2 begins another story: specifically the story of destruction and reconstruction. Genesis 2:4 begins yet another story of the office work of God as Jehovah in which He reaches out to fulfill the needs of fallen mankind.
Also, inasmuch as English employs many conjunctives to relate better contextual understanding and Hebrew employs principally only one. It is better to translate the conjunctive contextually. Such words as however, consequently, moreover, and, but, etc. may be rightly employed by the English translator.
Evidence appear overwhelming that the waw conjunctive in Genesis 1:2 should be translated "but" instead of "and". The heavens and the earth were created in perfection. The material wreckage is focused on the earth in contrast to the heavens. Therefore, "but" is the favored translation of the conjunctive to convery the better understanding of what had happened.

I am not sure if everyone here has heard of the waw conjuctive. You are much better than I am at Hebrew, so let's see if I have this right. The Hebrew letter “w,” translated “and,” appears nine times in the first five verses in what is known as a “waw conjunctive.” The "waw conjuctive" means that each statement is chronologically connected to the statements before and after. Each action follows immediately after the action described in the phrase preceding it. Gen. 1:2-5 therefore refers to one single 24-hour day: the beginning is the first day and the first day is the beginning.

From my understand of the matter, I would agree with you mostly. I do believe that Genesis 1:1 can be read as a complete narrative. However, I do not see a creation, destruction, and reconstruction in the passage. Instead, I see Gen 1:1 as a summary of the forming of the earth. In fact, I too see three complete narratives relating to man, each subsequent narrative focusing in on man more closely. Genesis 1:1 covers the entire creation of which man is a part, Genesis 1:2 give the specific details of the creation of this planet on which man dwells, and Genesis 2:4 commences the narrative about the very creation of man, and God's troubled relationship with him.

If I misinterpreted you, and we are actually in total agreement, then praise the Lord!

There is some confusion on my part I guess as I read some confusion in the original post in these two statements.
"However Waw Consecutive is not employed at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 because there is no intricate linkage." and then in this statement at the end of the post, " Evidence appear overwhelming that the waw conjunctive in Genesis 1:2 should be translated "but" instead of "and". " Does this Waw Consecutive exist or not, you cannot have it both ways.

Then, without any evidance of fact, this statement is made. "Genesis 1:2 begins another story: specifically the story of destruction and reconstruction. " For someone to make this statement you must show some kind of evidance that the statement is scriptural. This means some kind of internal scriptural study that would show that there was a "destruction" for there to be a "reconstruction".

Sorry, I don't think you can get the "gap" in there even if you misuse words.

I have re-read my original post to determine which words may have been "misused." I find none. The post is useful to those who have a Bible Language background, but others may find it somewhat puzzling. There is a difference between "waw consecutive" as a conjunctive and a simple "waw conjunctive." Anytime the Hebrew "waw" is prefixed to a word it is a conjunctive. However, when a series of statements are made and understood to be a narrative, waw consecutive is employed. It is pointed differently. Still, there is great latitude in English translation of the conjunctive according to context. Genesis 1:2 begins with a conjunctive, but not a consecutive conjunctive which lends credence to its translation of contrast "but". Genesis 1:3 begins with a consecutive conjunctive as do other verses in that chapter.

I'm trying to see the point, but I have no Language Background (not even English Ha..Ha..) Are we taking "GAP Theory" here?

If Genesis 1:2 should be "But the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." I can see a reconstruction, but I don't know enough to say "and" should be "but" it challenges me to search it out. Thanks..............................

I realize some of the language peculiarities pose significant obstacles for one who has not studied them. I do appreciate your willingness to accept a challenge to study.
Now that you are onto the conjunctive possibilities, it is necessary to note that there is no "to be" verb in Hebrew. Therefore, am, were, was, is, cannot be expressed in the language. Verbs are expressed as either complete or incomplete without regard to time. This is hard for the occidential mind since we think in terms of past, present, future time.
The point is Genesis 1:2 uses the verb "was" and it is not in italics in English translations. This means a Hebrew verb was translated "was". However, since there is no "to be" verb in Hebrew and "was" is a "to be" verb, it is not the best translation of the Hebrew word. This is further verified by the inclusion of "was" in nearly every other verse in Genesis One, but now they are in italics noting that they have been supplied by translators and were not translations of a Hebrew word.
This brings us back to Genesis 1:2. What is the word that has been mistranslated "was"? It is a word that conveys a sense of coming to be. The better translation of it would have been "became" or "proceeded to become" or "came to exist as"
Check this out with your English translation. If "was" were a legitimate word in Hebrew, it would have been included in all the other verses where the translators were forced to supply it in italics as a non-translated word.

I find it interesting that Isaiah 45:18 says, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." The phrase "in vain" is the Hebrew word "tohuw" (I don't know how to do Hebrew characters in here). It says that God did not create the earth "tohuw," or "formless."

Yet Genesis 1:2 says that the earth is "without form and void." That first word is also "tohuw." Genesis 1:1 says God created the earth. Verse 2 says its condition was "tohuw." Isaiah says God did not create the earth "tohuw." To me that says that something happened between those two verses. For that reason I feel that the Hebrew verb "hayah" in verse two would better be rendered "became" than merely "was."

I don't consider myself a "gap theorist," but I do need an unrecorded intervening event to have occurred for me to reconcile an otherwise contradictory usage of a Hebrew adjective.

Could it be that Isa. 45:18 speaks of God's "finished" creation, while Gen. 1:2 speaks of His creation before the process (all six days) was completed? I am no Hebrew scholar, but this makes sense to me.

Being no Hebrew scholar myself, you could be right in that interpretation, Mwithem, and I actually have no problem with that.

However, I see nothing attributing that there are "degrees" of creation, and feel that it would have to be assumed.

I certainly have no problem with that idea (and even if I did, it wouldn't matter that much

But for the aforementioned reasons, an interim between verses 1 and 2 seems possible to me. I would not waste my time in the pulpit trying to convince people of this, however. But it's entertaining to bring in up in a forum such as this.

A good and acceptable translation of Genesis 1:2 could well be:

"But the earth became without form and void; moreover, darkness proceeded to become upon the roaring abyss."

I just finished a search of many different translations of the Bible. I have yet to find one that reads "the earth became without form, and void." I would love to know if there is one.

I work primarily with original languages. I do not know if anyone has published a translation showing "was" as "became" in Genesis 1:2. However, that is the best meaning of the word. Furthermore, "was" is a "to be" verb in English and there is no such thing in Hebrew. If there were then "was" would not be supplied in italics in other verses in chapter one. Note my post of Nov. 25.
What surveying I have done of various translations, it appears translators were quite content to simply copy one another for the most part and especially if passages being translated were controversial.

To suggest the earth "became" the condition of verse two after its condition in verse one neglects the context of the entire chapter and other scriptures by the same author. Language can confuse the most educated! Some claim to have "deeper knowledge" beacause of language abilities. There is more to interpretation than language as you all know.

The word "created" is used in verse one to describe the beginning or new existence of that which was created. Verse two states in its newly created condition it "was without form and void." Then, not only was it without form and void, but "darkness was upon the face of the deep."

The word "darkness" clearly refers to a lack of light (Night v.5). Therefore after God said, "let there be light" he divided the light from the darkness. Darkness does not refer evil in this context as some conclude.

"Let there be" suggests that light on earth did not exist until God spoke it into existence. If one claims that light did exist before v.3 what could have been so overwhelmingly powerful to put out God's light? What scripture reference do you suggest?

Moses, the writer of Genesis, also wrote in Exodus 20:11, "in 6 days God made the heaven and the earth. If Genesis 1:1 were a different story Moses could not have used the word "made" in Exodus 20:11. The word "made" never means "remade" for if this were the case one must teach that God "remade" all the beast and mankind for the same word is used throughout Genesis chapter one.

To suggest that man and beast existed before Adam is to suggest that death existed before the sin of Adam. This destroys every fundamental teaching in the New Testament Scriptures.

What is earliest documentation on the gap theory? If I'm not mistaken it came after evolution was introduced as a defense against millions of years. Do we have to defend against a theory (not factual) developed by fallen man?

Theology is built on the meaning of words, both individually and collectively. If liberty is taken with terms doctrinal correctness and an understanding of the symetry of the scriptures cannot exist. Grammatical punctuation is also important in arriving at correct interpretations. While one would err to claim superior knowledge by using original languages, there can be no doubt that an understanding of the meaning of original words is of immense value. Such information may indeed be gained easily by English readers if they are adept at using such references as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with language dictionaries and other English reader helps.

The term used in Genesis 1:1 to indicate a bringing into existence is "Created" translated from the Hebrew "Bara". "Bara means, "to give form or shape to," as all lexicons will verify. A period at the end of the sentence indicates a complete thought. Both the heavens and the earth were given form per Genesis 1:1.

"Bara" specifically means "to cut out, to give form or shape to."
"Tohu" specifically means "formless, a waste, vain, void."

Now to depart from a strict language viewpoint to one of logic and simple belief of the scriptures one should note Isaiah 45:18. God said He did not make the earth "tohu, vain" "Bara, create" and "tohu, vain" are opposite terms. God did give the heavens and the earth form according to Genesis 1:1; however, the earth (not the heavens) became "tohu" formless and vain in Genesis 1:2. God said He did not do it, Isa. 45:18.

I know not what others may make of a so-called Gap Theory. I really do not care. I am interested in what the scriptures say regardless of what men may say or think. If you ask me about a period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, I would adamantly say it is not theory, it is scripture fact.

Then notice that what God does, He does suddenly, not through a drawn out process. He speaks and His own intrensic power causes the meaning of His words to come to pass instantaneously. This is also verified in Isaiah 48:3. Here He says he did them suddenly and they came to pass.

To admit the truth of the scriptures does not concede to those who are determined to twist the scriptures. I know of no scripture that speaks of animal life or of mankind before Adam. If others wish to put such there it is their problem -- not the scriptures.

There is much to be learned from the Word. Please do not let pseudo-science negate this wonderful world of learning.

more will be revealed in the last days.

W.A. the Hebrew knows "waw conversive," "waw conjunctive" and "waw consecutive" for sure.

In early studies the "waw" was thought to convert the tense of a verb into its opposite, but it does not seem right for a conjunction to convert a completed action into a incomplete one.

Later studies showed "waw" was confined to narratives and called it "waw consecutive."

Modern studies show it to be of Semitic orgin with preserved "forms."

So, I think perhaps you deduce too much from Genesis One on the basis of the "waw." But I do agree with some of your comments, at any rate.

To be sure, one arrives at conclusions based on language, correlation of scriptures and word usage over years of time spent in study.
I was first introduced to the concept of time unknown between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 by the work of Dr. J. Louis Guthrie. Later, Dr. L. D. Forman incorporated that work into his book Bible in Eight Ages. The possibilities were intriguing to say the least. But it was not until I had the opportunity to study extensively under Dr. Fred Stevenson that the whole picture began to form from the multitude of language indicators.
I am aware that many may not agree with my understanding of Genesis One. However, I am also aware that a lot more probably would if they had the opportunity to be exposed to these ideas in depth.
It is not my intention to force feed anyone, but I find great joy in studying these things and I would like for others to know that joy as well. So whether you guys agree with me or not, please let me challenge and encourage you to spend more time with the Word. It is the greatest treasure on earth.

Bro. Dillard, I agree great joy comes from studying the Word of God and I appreciate your humble spirit in the presentation of your studied efforts. Keep up the great work.

The writer was right most of us are not Hebrew Scholars but have to in his words, “Such information may indeed be gained easily by English readers if they are adept at using such references as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with language dictionaries and other English reader helps”. I am in that category, as I have to rely on these helps. Here are a few of the things you can learn from the helps.

Here are some of the things that must be taken into consideration on these two verses.
1. You state, “The term used in Genesis 1:1 to indicate a bringing into existence is "Created" translated from the Hebrew "Bara". "Bara means, "to give form or shape to," as all lexicons will verify.” This is what Vines says about this word, “bara' OT:1254, "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" Gen 1:1; cf. Genesis 2:3; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5. All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.” This is found in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers. Others like Strong’s and BDB give “to create” as the first meaning.

2. You also stated that “Tohu" specifically means "formless, a waste, vain, void” on this we agree however the verse you partially quote in Isa. 45:18 says, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” This verse is not saying that He did not form it in a chaotic form but that He formed it to be inhabited.

3. The word translated “was” is the word “hayah” which has been pointed out is not a to be verb but when you say it should be translated “became” is misleading. According to the King James Concordance this word is used 1162 times in the KJV (there are others that give more uses) and it points out that 538 times it is “came” and only 67 times is it translated “became”. If you use this line of thought the verse may be translated, “And the earth came 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.” This giving the idea that it was that way already. Of this word Strong’s also says, “A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)”.

Think about what you are saying! Point #2 last sentence you point out that God may have created the earth in an unformed or chaotic state. Now let's see: God formed the earth in an unformed state? Or, God gave shape to the earth in a chaotic or unshaped state? Hummm.
You appear to be correct on your research of "hayah" the overwhelming connotation if not outright denotation of the term is "come to exist" or "became." This gives credence to the conjunctive being translated "but" instead of "and" since it is a conjunctive of contrast focusing on the earth and not the heavens, both of which were given form to in 1:1.
Keep studing this area of thought. I do appreciate what you are doing and God bless.

Sorry for the delay but my internet has been down and it took a while to do some research.

Some how one of us missed the point in point #2. I am sure it was my writing and not your reading so I will once again try to make this point. I did not go into long detail as for space but here goes again.

I said “This verse is not saying that He did not form it in a chaotic form but that He formed it to be inhabited.” In the verse under consideration some would say that it says that God did not create the earth in a chaotic state therefore Gen. 1:2 must mean that something had to happen in order for it to be that way in this verse. I, on the other hand, see it that in verse 2 the statement is that God created the earth as the verse says, “without form, and void;” and believe that these words properly translated simply means that it had no form as we know it today or in Moses’ day and that it was empty or void of plants, animals and all the other creatures created during this week. This interpretation will work better with the whole of Isa. 45:18 “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” Here meaning that it was not just vanity or to show God’s might but he formed it for a reason and that was to be inhabited.

As to the “and” or “but”, Rabbi Younger at Aish.com said that the waw does not make any difference but that the construction of the Hebrew in these two verses will tie them together. You are right I am not a Hebrew scholar but the Rabbi seems to be. This is what took so long for the reply as I was waiting for his reply to my e-mail.

You are also right about having to study to get the truth out. I do thank you for causing me to study more through the years both on this and other topics we have discussed.

Thanks for the explanation. However, I did not misunderstand you. I strongly believe that the term Bara in Genesis 1:1 emphatically affirms that neither the heavens nor the earth were made in a chaotic state. This and other language indicators leads me to believe that a gap of time existed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Be very careful with advice received from a rabbi. They know nothing about the truth of the Old Testament presented in their own langauage. If they did they would be Christians. After all the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
You appear to be thinking and studying. This is good. Roll the meaning of these words around some more. They will be a blessing to you.

I agree that Rabbi Younger does not know the truth of the Old Testament in fact this group even claims that the Book of Daniel was a composite of several writers after the captivity. However, we are not talking about his advise on the truths of the Old Testament but only the construction of his own language.

A bible student may get off on things like the gap or the first of the week or middle of the week but still not be wrong about many other things. If you have a question about the original language it seems that you would go to a Jew for the question, as this is his language. It would be the same if you had a question about the Greek language you would surely ask a Greek speaking person.

I have “rolled” these words over many times from the first time I had this discussion in seminary years ago.

Your reasoning sounds logical on the surface; however, since theology is based on language, one must trust the language experts, not necessarily one who speaks that language. For instance, if I were a Hebrew and I wanted to know a specific language peculiarity of the English language which would affect my theology, should Iask you because you speak English? I would not (no offense) nor someone such as I. I would consult with the true linquists. For that reason I trust the lexicographers who are true linquists. I did not find any obvious fault in the advice you received from the rabbi, but I did not see any information explaining the difference between waw conjunctive and was consecutive either. No. I would not ask a Greek Orthodox practioner anything about the Greek language if my theology depended upon it. I have not seen nor heard of a Hebrew or a Greek finding fault with standard language lexicons.
I learned a long time ago that one convinced against his will is of the same mind still. Accordingly, I would not have you to believe anything I say if YOU cannot substantiate it by the scriptures. So, I am content to let our different viewpoints stand. Good to you.