Analysis of Genesis 1

[August]

While reading through my daily dose of blogs, I came across an interesting argument regarding the inerrancy of the Bible. The source text was Genesis 1, and the argument is familiar to some of us:" How can the Bible be inerrant if it states the light was created (day 1)before the sources of the light (day 4)?" That seems to be clearly illogical, and is not something that is easy to solve on face value.

That argument prompted me to think through it again, by the grace of God, and again look at what we can see in these passages:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

This seems to refer to days and nights as we know it, or does it? I know of the usual proposals to explain away the apparent discrepancy between days 1 and 4, like the light was a supernatural light until the creation of he celestial bodies on day 4 or there was a cloud of some sort that covered up the light from the light sources, and they only became visible on day 4 when needed to make the plants grow etc.

My thinking, aided by some use of the original languages, is somewhat different, in that the specifics around day 1 have nothing to do with physical creation, it has to do with the creation of God's plan for what was to follow, and putting in place the conditions necessary to carry out His plan of salvaton.

First, we are told of the conditions prevailing at the time of creation:
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

"without form" and "void" are both translated close in meaning:
without form:
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

void:
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.

Basically, nothing existed. Earth, or the "firmament" was essentially a vacuum, but, we read about the "darkness" that was around.

darkness:
חשׁך
chôshek
kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

If we then follow the reading from the original context a bit, it reads that there was chaos everywhere, brought on by the darkness, which, as we see above, carries all the characteristics of our evil enemy. This also ties in with what we can learn from Satan and his cohorts dismissed from heaven, they had to be somewhere, and "the deep" (also translated as the waters) sure sounds like a place we would find them. Interesting sidenote, we hear about the waters of life, and the waters referred to here can also be read as "wasted waters", in my mind another clue that we are on the right track, since the water of life is surely wasted on evil.

If we then move to the verse that describes day 1, we start with:
"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
In most explanations of this verse that I have heard, it is expalined that this means the creation of physical visible light. That may be true, but let's look at the original language again:
light:
אור
'ôr
ore
From H215; illumination or (concretely) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.): - bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.

It can mean day or sun, but, it can also mean luminary or happiness. We are told many places elsewhere in the Bible about the meaning of light:
John 3:19-21 (NIV)
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. [20] Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. [21] But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

1 John 1:5 (NIV)
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

1 Tim. 6:16 (NIV)
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

The contrast is set clearly that God is responsible for the light, against the darkness of evil.

If we then read further, we DO NOT read that God created darkness. This is kind of curious, since if this referred to the actual creation of lightsources and a turning earth that would give us day and night in the calender sense, then God would have been responsible for the creation of darkness. Instead, we read that:
"And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness."

That aligns perfectly with the plan of salvation, God separating light, His love and grace, from darkness. The darkness, earlier described as chaos and emptiness, and associated with the deepest recesses of creation, is here more clearly described as misery etc.

The seperation of light and darkness in these terms are numerous throughout the Bible, but is well described in:
2 Cor. 6:14 (NIV)
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

It makes sense for God to start off by seperating His light from the embodied evil before getting on with the rest of creation. He knew what He was creating, and He started by seperating His good (the light), from evil ( the darkness). He did not create the darkness, it is seperation from the light, just like we learn in science, darkness is the absence of light. Light and darkness can have no fellowship, but if we were to read Gen 1:3-5 as the creation of 24 hour days, then surely night and day has "fellowship", it moderates the temparatures on earth so that we don't fry or freeze.

To finish off, and to confirm that we read this right:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

day:
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

A wide range of readings on this, of course depending on context. In this context it will not be out of place to read it as a new birth of life, that what happens as a result of the light, God's plan of salvation, and salvation, for His creation that is to follow.

We can further confirm that by looking at the the opposite:
night
לילה ליל ליל
layil lêyl layelâh
lah'-yil, lale, lah'-yel-aw
properly a twist (away of the light), that is, night; figuratively adversity: - ([mid-]) night (season).

It is the turning away from the light, the adversity humans experience as a result of evil.

In summary, if we read the very first parts of Genesis from another perspective, it seems that it is speaking about the creation of the history that was to come, the creation of God's salvation for His creation, and the seperation of that from the darkness that was prevailing. If that was not the case, creation would have happened into darkness, with all being eternally lost.

This also addresses the dilemma that our objector brings up, this is not the same light that was brought forth by celestial bodies that we read about on day 4, this is the eternal light of God's plan, grace and love.

God bless. Comments and discussion welcome, of course.

[Byblos]

I read it yesterday but it was a superficial read as I was preoccupied with other things (duh!), so I didn't pay much attention and just dismissed it as yet another Genesis interpretation (sort of yeah, ok, whatever).

Today I decided to give it another, more in-depth read and try to really understand what it's saying and I have to admit, I'm very impressed. I haven't yet compared it to other Genesis interpretations to see if there are any holes but even at that, I can say it is one of the best Genesis interpretations I've ever read. Phenomenal job August; how ever did you come up with it?

[August]

Thanks Byblos. As ever, I am just the messenger, inspiration comes from the Spirit, all glory and credit to God.

If you do happen to find some holes in it, please mention it, because I think this is an important issue in Biblical inerrancy apologetics, and multiple inspiration is better than one!

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks Byblos. As ever, I am just the messenger, inspiration comes from the Spirit, all glory and credit to God.

If you do happen to find some holes in it, please mention it, because I think this is an important issue in Biblical inerrancy apologetics, and multiple inspiration is better than one!

August,

I took some time to read through this and my comments are similar to Byblos.

First, most of this I have seen in some form or another and so there is not anything particularly new there (which is a good thing .... new in the context of Genesis usually equals "off the wall")

I've wrestled over Genesis in this reqard in the context of a "literal hermeneutic" for years. Primarily because this is the crux of YEC teaching and along with it is usually the implication or outright statement that if you attempt to approach this passage with anything but a dogmatic "literalistic" interpretation that you are somehow minimizing the Word of God.

Of course, that is all too often a simplistic approach.

To approach a text "literally" does not mean rendering a passage to be understood in the most simplistic and direct manner possible.

It may mean that. But more to the point, what it does mean is "understanding a passage in the way that those writing it originally and those hearing it originally, understood it."

This is where I am currently in terms of of the Genesis 1 (and 2 passages.)

Who wrote it? Moses.

Who did he write it to? The children of Israel.

When did he write it? During the Exodus.

Why did he write it? To encourage a people with a 400 year history of Slavery, to have a sense of the unique relationship and purpose that God has always had for them, to strengthen them in the midst of their current challenges as they journeyed, and to prepare them for the taking of the promised land.

Filters we as 21st century readers bring to the text that were not there when it was originally written include:

1. We are a technical, scientific people who place a great deal of emphasis upon precise and clear language, specifically to avoid confusion and ambiguity whenever possible.

The Hebrews in the Exodus, were not highly educated (certainly not to our standards) and were focused upon their immediate situation and challenges. They certainly had an oral tradition and history which was maintained and held to even while in Egypt. Much of Moses' information was not new to them, so much as it was arranged and preserved in a manner that laid out a history and progression that in turn was designed to encourage and lead them to believe that God was not finished with them yet.

2. We tend to examine messages and deconstruct them so that by understanding the minutiae, we can then rebuild and come to a better understanding of the whole. As such our focus is narrow and static, seeking to understand things in the smallest component first, and then moving on to the whole.

The Hebrew mindset was quite different. Their view was Dynamic and Holistic. They saw themselves in relationship to God and His plan in broad terms moving through time until the present. They were not uncomfortable or resistant to seemingly conflicting information, choosing instead to see things from a broad perspective and with that a willingness to embrace mystery, especially where the person and purpose of God were concerned.

____

I think what you are bringing to this passage reflects much of this and as such I think you've got a pretty good grasp on what is taking place.

I would simply state a few things in terms of hermeneutics that are a little delicate. I believe the principle of using Scripture to interpret Scripture is primary and important. I tend to have some concerns however, that using New Testament passages to interpret Old Testament passages, particularly when there is not a direct appeal or tie between the two passages, requires great care to not fall into the potential error of simply proof-texting a concept back onto the older passage where there is not necessarily a direct connection.

An example of this positively would be John 1 with Gen 1 where there is clearly, by the language used and the concepts potrayed a direct appeal and drawing by John of the Genesis account to demonstrate the pre-eminence and eternality of Christ.

I'm not quite as comfortable with some of the appeals I see you making here. It is not that I think they cannot be applicable. It is just that I'm not as convinced that the concept being lifted and applied were quite as clearly in the minds of the original emanuensis and the listeners and that always makes me a little nervous.

My thinking, aided by some use of the original languages, is somewhat different, in that the specifics around day 1 have nothing to do with physical creation, it has to do with the creation of God's plan for what was to follow, and putting in place the conditions necessary to carry out His plan of salvaton.

Your comment above captures it for me.

It also has the benefit of providing a reasonable and textually based answer as to why Gen 1 and Gen 2 seem, when read through the lenses specified above, to have conflicts.

Genesis is not written by a technically motivated or trained scientist.

Genesis is not written to a technically motivated or aware audience.

Genesis is written primarily to provide a framework and context for the basis of a relationship between God and the nation of Israel. This in turn we know to tie into God's plan for salvation for all of mankind, based upon the promises found first in Genesis that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head.

So, my feedback for what it is worth would be overall kudos with some reservation as to whether in some places the connections made are entirely textually based.

Hope that helps and feel free to disagree or pin me down where I'm not being specific enough.

[August]

Bart,

Thanks for the comments. I will be totally honest, I did not come up with this from a commentary, but from my first serious bit of study since coming back from holiday. I would have guessed that it was not original thought, since we only have a limited number of options in which we can interpret the passages mentioned, and because there can be only one truth.

To approach a text "literally" does not mean rendering a passage to be understood in the most simplistic and direct manner possible.

It may mean that. But more to the point, what it does mean is "understanding a passage in the way that those writing it originally and those hearing it originally, understood it."

That is absolutely correct. In light of your (very light and much appreciated) criticism that follows though, do you not think that even though there was a "primary" audience for these passages as you point out, the meaning and message behind this earliest history is also timeless? The context of the study, as I mentioned, was around a skeptical take on the inerrancy of the Bible. Maybe I am overreading what you are saying, but I think that while we should not disregard the original audience and purpose, we should also not underestimate the timeless value of exactly how things came to be.

This is where I am currently in terms of of the Genesis 1 (and 2 passages.)

Who wrote it? Moses.

Who did he write it to? The children of Israel.

When did he write it? During the Exodus.

Why did he write it? To encourage a people with a 400 year history of Slavery, to have a sense of the unique relationship and purpose that God has always had for them, to strengthen them in the midst of their current challenges as they journeyed, and to prepare them for the taking of the promised land.

Filters we as 21st century readers bring to the text that were not there when it was originally written include:

1. We are a technical, scientific people who place a great deal of emphasis upon precise and clear language, specifically to avoid confusion and ambiguity whenever possible.

The Hebrews in the Exodus, were not highly educated (certainly not to our standards) and were focused upon their immediate situation and challenges. They certainly had an oral tradition and history which was maintained and held to even while in Egypt. Much of Moses' information was not new to them, so much as it was arranged and preserved in a manner that laid out a history and progression that in turn was designed to encourage and lead them to believe that God was not finished with them yet.

2. We tend to examine messages and deconstruct them so that by understanding the minutiae, we can then rebuild and come to a better understanding of the whole. As such our focus is narrow and static, seeking to understand things in the smallest component first, and then moving on to the whole.

The Hebrew mindset was quite different. Their view was Dynamic and Holistic. They saw themselves in relationship to God and His plan in broad terms moving through time until the present. They were not uncomfortable or resistant to seemingly conflicting information, choosing instead to see things from a broad perspective and with that a willingness to embrace mystery, especially where the person and purpose of God were concerned.

I do not disagree with your statements here, but I would like to add that as I see it, God provided us with His inspired word for all ages, equally applicable for us analytical modern types, as well as the ancient Hebrews, and everyone in between. In that lies for me an inexplicable divine elegance, something that I heard someone describe as:"We know so much more than we can explain."

I think what you are bringing to this passage reflects much of this and as such I think you've got a pretty good grasp on what is taking place.

I would simply state a few things in terms of hermeneutics that are a little delicate. I believe the principle of using Scripture to interpret Scripture is primary and important. I tend to have some concerns however, that using New Testament passages to interpret Old Testament passages, particularly when there is not a direct appeal or tie between the two passages, requires great care to not fall into the potential error of simply proof-texting a concept back onto the older passage where there is not necessarily a direct connection.

I hear what you are saying, and maybe my perspective will help a little here. If we accept that Gen 1:3-5 is about the creation of God's plan for salvation, and setting in motion at the very beginning of time the conditions and circumstances necessary for Him to execute His masterplan, then we should expect to find the golden thread of that execution throughout history, and into the future, until the end of time. The texts I referred to, as you very well know, is defintely no exhaustive on the topic of light vs darkness. That would require a book or two, I would imagine. I wanted to see where what I believed was put in motion right in the beginning, was followed through and described in terms that would have resonated with the Hewbrews that lived in Jesus' time. They would have been intimately familiar with the passages of the Pentateuch, and therefore a description of the execution of God's plan in terms of what they were familiar with would have been appropriate. There are other references to the passages throughout the OT that I did not reference, as I (probably somewhat too impatiently), wanted to jump to the punchline.

For me, that punchline, the masterstroke in the masterplan, came in the form of Jesus, the embodyment of the light that was seperated from the darkness. While the connection between the texts may appear strenuous to you, I have no qualms about connecting the dots in the fashion I did. I realize we have to be careful to not merely read there what we want, or what fits our line of reasoning, but I can honestly say that I have studied this for a bit, and do not find my connections to be that remote.

I'm not quite as comfortable with some of the appeals I see you making here. It is not that I think they cannot be applicable. It is just that I'm not as convinced that the concept being lifted and applied were quite as clearly in the minds of the original emanuensis and the listeners and that always makes me a little nervous.

Sure, and you are right to be suspicious. Do you still feel the same after my explanation above that those readers of the NT were equally as likely to have been familiar with the OT texts, and therefoe those parallels exist? Or do you differ from me on this?

Your comment above captures it for me.

It also has the benefit of providing a reasonable and textually based answer as to why Gen 1 and Gen 2 seem, when read through the lenses specified above, to have conflicts.

Genesis is not written by a technically motivated or trained scientist.

Genesis is not written to a technically motivated or aware audience.

Genesis is written primarily to provide a framework and context for the basis of a relationship between God and the nation of Israel. This in turn we know to tie into God's plan for salvation for all of mankind, based upon the promises found first in Genesis that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head.

So, my feedback for what it is worth would be overall kudos with some reservation as to whether in some places the connections made are entirely textually based.

Hope that helps and feel free to disagree or pin me down where I'm not being specific enough.

Thanks Bart, this is very reasonable and much appreciated feedback. I think I addressed some of my background thinking on the textual relations without getting into specifics as well. Is there anything specific that you wanted to see addressed?

God bless.

[Jac3510]

August, I have a question:

While I do not disagree that we should be cautious of ruling out timeless truths in our quest for historical accuracy (is that not in a sense the same thing the "quests" for the "historical Jesus" did?), we must also remember not to violate the normal rules of communication in our interpretations. Of that much, I am sure you will agree. With that in mind, do you think the original audience (the Exodus generation) would have had any clue whatsoever about a grand plan of salvation, especially in a spiritual sense?

Phrasing the question another way: if we suppose you are right, what would this text have meant to the first readers, and how would they have come to these conclusions?

[August]

August, I have a question:

While I do not disagree that we should be cautious of ruling out timeless truths in our quest for historical accuracy (is that not in a sense the same thing the "quests" for the "historical Jesus" did?), we must also remember not to violate the normal rules of communication in our interpretations. Of that much, I am sure you will agree. With that in mind, do you think the original audience (the Exodus generation) would have had any clue whatsoever about a grand plan of salvation, especially in a spiritual sense?

Phrasing the question another way: if we suppose you are right, what would this text have meant to the first readers, and how would they have come to these conclusions?

That is a good and valid question, so let me attempt to answer.

Yes, I think that the Exodus generation would have come away with an idea of of what the seperation of light and darkness meant. While I don't think it is blindingly obvious, they must have understood from the earliest days that they were chosen and blessed for a reason.

Firstly, they were under the deep impression of the Abrahamic covenant which included that in him and his descendants:
Gen 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." The covenant also includes the promise to be a God to them,

Secondly, they would have been either contemporaries or within a few generations of those actually saved from Egypt, on which we read:
The validity of the Abrahamic covenant:
Exo 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

The keeping of God's promise:

Exo 14:13 And Moses said to the people, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will work for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again.

and to be sure that that had a lasting effect on them:

Exo 14:31 Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.

Exo 15:1 Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, "I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.
Exo 15:2 The LORD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him.

I think it is possible to argue that the preceding all just relates to the rescue from Egypt, but the phrases about being a God to them has eternal ramifications. That is further confirmed by the litany of instructions that follows their journey out of Egypt, and the precautions and instructions to act holy and not sin, for if they did, they would be removed from God's book (Ex 32:33).

In summary, they were recipients of a promise of an eternal blessing from their descendants, they were witnesses to a supernatural series of events that preserved them from being assimilated into another nation, and they were direct recipients of God's revelation, which set the conditions for their childrenhood of God.

All of that then can be correlated back to the account of seperation of good from evil that they no doubt would have had preserved from their forefathers, so that Moses (and a little of Aaron) may document it along with the rest of the pentateuch.

[Canuckster1127]

August,

Thank you for your response.

Your answer does help to qualify some of what you are saying.

The theme of Light vs Darkness is certainly one that is established immediately in Genesis and can be seen as thematic throughout Scripture.

The highlight or culmination of that theme is in Jesus himself, particularly as preserved in John where Jesus makes one of his pivotal "I AM" statements (which encompasses the Hebrew verb from which is derived the name of God as YHWH). That John 1 begins with clear reference to this passage strengthens your observation and makes firm your claim as that theme then carries throughout the Gospel.

I have no difficulty with your major premise.

I think we have basic agreement as well, as to the purpose and context of Genesis in terms of establishing the basis for God's plan of salvation through Israel and then to all nations.

That being said, I'm not sure that you can argue effectively that the creation account itself is subservient to that point and thus can be seen as secondary, without some risk of reducing it to myth or metaphore.

I'm not sure that is what you are arguing for, but what you are saying might be seen by some to provide an opportunity to go there.

I believe the factors I mentioned earlier, in terms of the world-view framework of emanuensis and audience coupled with such practical issues as the limits of the Hebrew vocabulary to convey the detail we wish to superimpose upon the text are more to the point and provide an immediate explanation without the need to discount the "literal" (however you define that) reading of the events.

Genesis 12 - 50 is clearly to be understood in terms of linear history in the form of narrative. I think you have to accept Gen 1 - 11 as the same although the context in terms of span of years and individuals tracked certainly allows for differences in approach to understanding it.

Does that make sense?

Bart