Keep sharing good news without ads.
The Beginning of Days: A Response to Jeremy Lyon’s “Genesis 1:1–3 and the Literary Boundary of Day One” by John B. Carpenter
The Beginning of Days, a response to Jeremy D. Lyon's Genesis 1, 1 -3, and the Literary Boundary of Day One. Jeremy D. Lyon, in his essay Genesis 1, 1 -3, and the Literary Boundary of Day One, claimed that Genesis 1, verses 1 -2, is meant to be read as part of Day One, and that this interpretation, quote, reflects the grammar and syntax in the most straightforward manner, and is supported by, quote, intertextual commentary, that is, other parts of the Bible.
He helpfully focuses on the most crucial issue for a young earth creationist, whether Genesis 1 allows for long periods of time between the creation ex nihilo, out of nothing, in Genesis chapter 1, verse 1, and the beginning of the days in chapter 1, verse 3.
Following the work of Weston Fields, Lyon offers a grammatically impressive defense of a crucial issue for defending young earth creationism, that's YEC, that Genesis 1, 1 -2, is a circumstantial, that is, that it describes the circumstances at the dawn of Day One.
However, his conclusion about the circumstantial clauses of Genesis chapter 1, verse 2, is overly narrow. Further, Lyon scarcely touches on the literary device debarkating the onset of each day, the, and God said, refrain, and doesn't deal with the scene-setting grammar and vocabulary of the first two verses, or the vuv consecutive, beginning chapter 1, verse 3, or the different terms, create versus make, that's bara versus assa, between Genesis chapter 1, verse 1, and Exodus chapter 20, verse 11, and chapter 31, verse 17.
These crucial omissions mean that Lyon fails to prove his claims. Jeremy D. Lyon, in a 2019 essay in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, proffered an interpretation of Genesis 1 that begins Day One at the first verse.
He called this the, quote, traditional interpretation, and claimed it, quote, reflects the grammar in the most straightforward manner, and is supported by intertextual commentary. It is the standard interpretation for Young Earth creationists, YECists, like Ken Ham and John MacArthur.
The key question, would an unindoctrinated reader in the original audience Genesis was intended for read Genesis 1 as beginning Day One in verse 1? By unindoctrinated, I don't mean presupposition-less, as no such reader exists.
I mean the average reader or hearer for which Genesis was intended. Does the author intend us to see the first two verses of Genesis as describing Day One? Does Genesis, in that way, create an unbroken, datable, chronological sequence back to creation?
Lyon and the YECist insist that it does. Does their interpretation stand up to scrutiny? The place to begin is at the beginning. Many readers assume that the key to the debate is the meaning of Day, but this begs the question as to whether Genesis 1 -2 is part of Day One.
Until that issue is settled, debating the meaning of Day is premature. The first crucial question, when does Day One begin? Thankfully, this is the question that Lyon grapples with. Like Luther wrote to Erasmus, Lyon is to be praised and commended highly for attacking the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and not rearing us with trifles.
In this debate, the definition of Yom, or Day, would be a trifle between young-earth and old-earth creationism until we settle whether the first two verses preface Day One or are part of it. Begin at the beginning.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1 -1. That's the first sentence our imaginary, unindoctrinated reader would see. Lyon claims that the traditional and, quote, straightforward reading of this verse is that it begins Day One.
Lyon's interpretation achieves for young-earth creationists an unbroken chronological sequence all the way back to the original creation of Genesis 1 -1, which is essential to it. Lyon concludes, quote, Genesis 1 -1 is an independent clause depicting God's initial creative act, creatio ex nihilo, on Day One.
Genesis 1 -2 is a description of the state or condition of the earth as it was originally created. Genesis 1 -3 then moves the narration forward. Thus, the first five verses, Genesis 1 -1 to 5, constitute the creative acts of Day One.
The text does not allow for the possibility of preexistent matter or an undisclosed period of time prior to Day One. There is a major literary marker that we can assume our unindoctrinated reader would immediately notice.
The refrain that introduces each day occurs in verse 3. Genesis 1 -3 doesn't simply move the narration forward. It opens with a refrain, a literary device that marks it off, and he said. Each of the days is demarcated by a refrain with, and God said, beginning each day.
And it was evening and it was morning, the nth day, concluding, except for the seventh. Because we're looking for the literary boundary of Day One, we cannot dismiss such an obvious boundary marker. Since every day is begun with the refrain, consistency suggests that the writer intends to show us that Day One begins with, and God said.
In verse 3, there is no literary reason why verse 1 could not have begun with God said, if the intention was to communicate that verses 1 and 2 are part of Day One. In a detailed essay on this issue, it's notable that Lyon does not substantially deal with the introductory portion of the refrain.
He fills three pages demonstrating the paragraph divisions of the Qumran text compared to the Masoretic and an entire section on the commentary of ancient Jewish literature, but confines his exegesis of the refrain that opens each day to two sentences in the footnotes.
He notes that John Collins bases his conclusions on the fact that the first Woyuktol verb, then he said, occurs in chapter 1, verse 3, and that the following work days of Creation Week, days 2 to 6, begins with the same Woyuktol verb.
He notes that the ending of every day is demarcated by, and there was evening and there was morning, the nth day, but dismisses the idea that the phrase that consistently marks the beginning of every other day also marks the beginning of Day One.
He states, quote, the fact that each of the subsequent work days of Creation Week begin with the Woyuktol verb, then he said, does not necessarily mean that Day One must also begin with the Woyuktol verb, then he said, in chapter 1, verse 3.
He reasons that this is the case because, quote,. This is dubious reasoning. Just because the, and God said, refrain is used at other places, each significant creative acts, then just the beginning of the days, doesn't mean that the refrain still doesn't mark the beginning of each creation day.
Because, and he said, is also used to mark the immensely important creative events of vegetation, chapter 1, verse 11, humanity, chapter 1, verse 26, and food for humanity, in chapter 1, verse 29, doesn't alter the fact that it also is the literary boundary marker for the beginning of each of the other days.
Should we conclude that it is also serving that purpose for the first day? That is, every other day in the Creation Week is begun with the literary marker, and God said, in order to show that chapter 1, verses 1 to 2, is part of Day One, Lion must show why Day One is an exception to this rule.
He doesn't.
The vuvz.
Disjunctive and consecutive. A major part of Lion's case is his exegesis of the Hebrew conjunction beginning verse 2, the vuv, usually translated as and.
Quote,.
Unquote.
Hence, he concludes, on the basis of this vuv. Disjunctive,.
That, quote,.
Lion,.
In his book, Unformed and Unfilled, he sought to close any possibility for long intervals between the initial creation and the beginning of Day One. That is, like Lion, he tried to exclude the gap theory as a viable interpretation of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 1 to 2.
The gap theory posits that there is a lengthy, undefined interval of time between the initial creation in Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1, and the dawn of Day One in chapter 1, verse 3. It was popularized by Thomas Chalmers, who lived from 1780 to 1847, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and founder of the Free Church of Scotland.
The gap theory was part of the original Schofield Reference Bible in 1909. It was more recently propagated by Arthur C. Constance, who lived from 1910 to 1985, a Canadian anthropologist, biblical archaeologist, and Hebrew scholar, who wrote Without Form and Void in 1970.
Constance's gap theory claims there is an epoch between chapter 1, verse 1 and chapter 1, verse 2. Fields responded by describing the conjunction beginning Genesis, chapter 1, verse 2 as a vuv attached to a noun, for example, and the earth, usually interpreted as a vuv disjunctive, which may indicate the background or circumstances of the main verb.
John Goldengay, referring to verse 2, notes that this is, quote, a normal view that those are disjunctive vuvs, unquote. It may indicate that the action is simultaneous or parenthetical material to the main verb.
For example, and the earth was, without form, etc., while God said the first command, the fiat, let there be light, that begins day one. It is in contrast to the vuv consecutive, which is attached to a verb, for example, and God said.
And, as we'll see, is usually translated simply as and. Fields sought to show that the vuv disjunctive opening chapter 1, verse 2 prohibits any length of time between chapter 1, verse 1 and chapter 1, verse 2 and by implication attaches chapter 1, verses 1 to 2 to chapter 1, verse 3, and thus day one.
However, there are several problems with Lyon's narrower interpretation of vuv in Genesis chapter 1, verses 1 to 2. First, as Leslie Allen has noted, vuv is so flexible in its meaning that it's not possible to interpret it so technically and specifically.
Brown Driver Briggs, a Hebrew dictionary, notes that the vuv is, quote, used freely and widely in Hebrew, but also with much delicacy to express relations and shades of meaning which Western languages would usually indicate by distinct particles, unquote.
How we determine what shade of meaning the vuv might carry is a matter of context and interpretation. It should be interpreted contextually rather than implying that a vuv, not connected to a verb, is necessarily a, quote, vuv copulative, used disjunctively, that is a vuv disjunctive, and necessarily exclude the possibility of gaps as Fields and Lyon claim.
In this case, common sense demands some kind of sequences, as the earth must be, quote, void and desolate after having been created in chapter 1, verse 1, if, as Lyon rightly argues, chapter 1, verse 1 is describing creation ex nihilo.
So, while it's technically accurate to observe that the vuv beginning chapter 1, verse 2 is a disjunctive, as Goldie Gay remarks, quote, I don't see how this proves anything about creationism, unquote.
Vuv is an extremely common Hebrew word, really a prefix to other words which may carry the meaning of and, or but, now, then, so forth, or even be untranslated, as it was by the New King James Version of Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 to 2, effectively treating it as a punctuation.
Other than in the very first sentence of chapter 1, verses 1 to 3, vuv begins every sentence there. Further, while most scholars agree with Lyon that the vuv beginning Genesis chapter 1, verse 2 is a disjunctive and so does not necessarily convey the meaning of a sequence of events, most would also say that the vuv beginning chapter 1, verse 3 is a vuv consecutive, which likely does convey a sequence.
But is it an immediate sequence with no possibility of other events, no gaps, so immediate that the attached events must have occurred on the same day? Answers in Genesis, official spokesman Troy Lacey insists that it is.
According to AIG, the vuv consecutive beginning chapter 1, verse 3, quote, really means something akin to and then next, unquote. Further, they say, quote, so it is revealed that all these events from chapter 1, verse 1 through chapter 1, verse 5 equal one day, verse 5, constrained by evening and morning.
Therefore, at most, the time between the creative events of each day cannot be longer than 12 hours for, in verse 3, God created light. Had God wanted to convey a time period, some type of gap between each day or any day, he would have surely done so by not having Moses connect everything with a vuv consecutive,.
To his credit, Lyon does not try to make this case of an immediate sequence of events based on the vuv consecutive. AIG is right in the basic data they report. The vuv consecutive means generally and then next, but then wrong in the way they interpret that data.
They imply that the vuv consecutive allows for no intervening events as though it means and then immediately next. This is a rendering of vuv not borne out by Hebrew usage.
Or lexicons.
It's simply not true. For example, in Genesis chapter 5, the genealogical entry of each name beginning with Adam in verse 3 and following in verses 6, 9, and 12 begins with vuv translated as win in the ESV of vuv consecutive.
Surely, though, we are not expected to believe that Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, and so forth did nothing other than father a son at the specified time and there were no intervening events. Indeed, we're told each of them had other sons or daughters in the intervening time.
The truth is that the vuv consecutive only signifies the next event that the author wishes to narrate. Fields and now Lion aren't so careless as AIG as to make inaccurate sweeping claims about the vuv consecutive.
Rather,.
They ignore it.
Despite relying on the disjunctive of chapter 1 verse 2 for his argument, Lion doesn't deal with the vuv consecutive opening verse 3, the first word in the refrain, And God said. He doesn't mention the vuv consecutive at all.
This is a crucial omission because the vuv consecutive beginning the first And God said in verse 3 can indeed allow for a gap between the original creation and the beginning of the days. Fields strove to prove that the opening vuv of chapter 1 verse 2 cannot be a consecutive.
That consecutives, not disjunctives, allow the possibility of a time interval. Hence, Fields and Lion have implicitly admitted that the vuv consecutive beginning verse 3 may separate chapter 1 verses 1 to 2 from day 1.
Just as the vuv consecutive separates each day from the one before. That is, the opening vuv of chapter 1 verse 3 communicates a subsequent act in the same way as the vuvs that begin every other day. Fields and Lion strove to close any possible gap between verse 1 and verse 2 based on their interpretation of the vuv disjunctive.
But in so doing, they appear to have proved the consecutive opening verse 3 with a refrain allows for a break in the sequence of events between verse 2 and verse 3. The sine qua non of YECism, Young Earth Creationism, is demonstrating an unbroken, dateable chronology back to the original creation.
So, tying verse 2 to verse 3 is crucial. YEC seeks to link the original creation in verse 1 to the first fiat, first command, of day 1 in verse 3 through the events of verse 2. But that attempt founders on exactly the grammatical point Fields and Lion worked so hard to prove to close the gap between verses 1 and 2.
A vuv consecutive, not a disjunctive begins verse 3. They argue, unpersuasively, that the vuv disjunctive opening verse 2 forbids any gap between in the beginning in verse 1 and God said in verse 3, but fail to note the vuv consecutive opening verse 3 allows that gap.
Grammar.
This then.
Begins the third major issue after the refrain and the vuv regarding time in Genesis 1 -2. The grammar. Lion claims that the, quote, straightforward interpretation of the verbs suggests that verses 1 and 2 are part of day 1.
C. John Collins disagrees. He noted, quote, the likely function of Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 is to describe the conditions of the earth just as the first day was beginning in verse 3. So it says nothing about whether there was any time gap between the initial creation event in verse 1 and the first day.
I argue this on the basis of discourse grammar. Unquote. By discourse grammar, Collins means that the perfect tense in the opening of the narrative describes an event that occurred prior to the main narrative.
Quote, the normal use of the perfect at the very beginning of a pericope, that is a set of verses that forms one coherent unit or thought suitable for public reading from a text, a distinct section that can be marked off from the rest, that's a pericope.
Quote, the normal use of the perfect at the very beginning of a pericope is to denote an event that took place before the storyline gets underway. Unquote. It's a stage setting grammatical device. Lyon calls them katal verbs, apparently referring to the same thing, a past tense.
The main storyline uses what Hebrew grammarians call weyictal verbs. Weyictal means an plus yictal. For example, William Eyre, and he would say, and he said, to put it simplistically, it's a storytelling sense.
In Genesis chapter 1, there are no weyictal, storytelling verbs in the first two verses. The first two verses are katal verbs, which Collins explains are for, quote, stage setting. The first use of a weyictal verb, and thus the marker that the main narrative has begun is at the onset of verse 3.
And he said, William Eyre, the remainder of Genesis 1 contains these types of verbs. Hence, created, bara, in chapter 1 verse 1, quote, denotes an action prior to the main storyline that is prior to the beginning of the first day.
Unquote. Collins concludes, based on this discourse grammar, that day 1 begins in chapter 1 verse 3 at an unspecified time after the creation of the universe in verse 1. Lyon's response is to claim that it is more, quote, natural to read the first two verses as part of day 1, and that it would, quote, seem to be a bit out of place, unquote, to begin the narrative with weyictal verbs.
He explains that his reading is more natural, quote, considering one of the primary though not exclusive functions of the weyictal is to move the narration forward sequentially, unquote. That the weyictal verbs beginning in verse 3 move the narration forward isn't the question.
The question is, why doesn't verse 1 begin with such a verb if, as he argues, day 1 begins in verse 1? Why is the stage set for, and God said, if there is no stage prior to, and God said? He further explains, quote, and given there would have been no creative acts prior to the beginning, unquote.
That is, he's saying verses 1 to 2 must be part of day 1 because there cannot be any acts before the, quote, absolute beginning, apparently assuming that day 1 is the absolute beginning. Lion is begging the question of whether Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 to 2 is part of day 1.
He says it is because that is, quote, the natural reading. In reality, it is quite natural to preface a narrative by setting the stage, in this case, setting the stage for the six days by briefly describing the events prior to the beginning of days.
There are four stage setting statements, one in verse 1 about the absolute beginning, and three in verse 2 focusing on the condition of the earth. First, and the earth was void and desolate. Second, and darkness was over the face of the deep.
Third, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Genesis chapter 1 verse 2, the second part, and darkness is over the face of the deep is closely connected to the first part because it borrows its verb, haieta, from it.
Genesis chapter 1, the third part, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters may be interpreted as separable and so as an independent sentence, or the third part may be interpreted as having a participle, hovering, that assumes the verb of the first part was or became alongside it.
Either way, the verb in the third part describes ongoing action, was hovering. To hover is dynamic, an action over some time. This word evokes the image of a hen brooding over her chicks. It suggests nurturing, care, supervision.
The same word, hovering, is used in Deuteronomy chapter 32, verse 11, quote, like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on his pinions, unquote.
And in Jeremiah chapter 23, verse 9, where the ESV and other translations renders it as shakes, it also suggests a process over a period of time. How long a period of time? The passage doesn't say. This brings us to two independent, though interwoven issues.
First, whether the phrases of Genesis chapter 1, verses 1 to 2 are sequential or circumstantial. And second, whether the verb in chapter 1, verse 2, the first part, hayata, is properly translated as was or became.
That is, is it, and the earth was void and desolate or the earth became void and desolate? If they are sequential, they communicate a chain of events over time, a problem if the time is less than 24 hours.
If they are circumstantial, they describe the environment of the action. Circumstantial clause describes the manner, circumstances, or conditions under which the main clause occurs. In other words, what are the circumstances going on as the events begin to unfold?
They can theoretically be interpreted in four different ways, as sequential with hayata, as was, the earth was void, or sequential with hayata as became, the earth became, after something happened, void, or circumstantial with hayata as was, the earth was void, or even circumstantial with hayata as became, describing events prior to day one which brought about the circumstances on the dawn of that day.
None of these possible interpretations establish Lyon's young earth creationist case. Some trouble it. A sequential interpretation of chapter 1 verses 1 to 2 could render the vuvz as then and hayata in chapter 1 verse 2, the first part, as became.
In other words, the earth became void, with the interpretation that it relates a series of events. The earth became void and desolate and then darkness became over the waters and then the spirit of God nurtured the earth.
This approach suggests that the earth was first created by the command, the fiat, of chapter 1 verse 1, and then it became void. It implies a cosmic catastrophe that befell the earth. Some gap theorists have filled this gap with speculation that tends to discredit the gap theory, speculation that Lyon understandably pounces on.
Lyon claims that this is impossible because the vuvz disjunctive discussed above and the grammar, quote, the form of the verb, hayata, which is not connected to the vuvz conjunction, cannot be construed as became in this context.
Lyon asserts this conclusion on the basis of Cassinius Hebrew Grammar, published in 1910, but doesn't note that many other Hebrew grammarians don't concur. Barry Banstra notes that hayata could indeed be rendered as a, quote, material process and be translated as became, unquote.
Hence, sequential, contrary to Lyon. This suggests that, quote, the earth went through a transformation, unquote. Lyon is eager to discredit this as an exegetical possibility because if the earth became void as a result of events after creation, but prior to day one, the dateable sequence of events on which young creationism relies is undone.
In an email interview, Leslie Allen, my former Old Testament professor, noted the possibility of interpreting the three statements of chapter 1, verse 2 as, quote, circumstantial and whether they are dependent or independent clauses.
Independent clauses are separate sentences as in the current major English translations of Genesis chapter 1, verses 1 to 2. Lyon wants us, as is traditional, to read the first two verses as circumstantial and as independent clauses.
He concludes that chapter 1, verse 2 is, quote, a parenthetical description of the condition of the earth in its initial created state. Allen says that this is a definite possibility. Genesis chapter 1, verse 2, quote, is generally interpreted as a nominal circumstantial clause with the verb, haieta, just functioning as a copula, a was, with the usual order of subject predicate in a circumstantial clause, unquote.
Wilhelm Ganesius concurs he believed that Genesis chapter 1, verse 2 is an example of haia, the root word, being used as a, quote, connecting word, what Allen calls a copula. The condition reported by haia is either, quote, contemporaneous with the principal events or continuing as a result of them, unquote.
The relevant question for us then is, what are the principal events? The creation of Genesis chapter 1, verse 1? Or the and God said of verse 3? Paul, Juan, and Takemitsu Murako likewise interpreted haia as a copula, was, connecting the earth with void and desolate, describing the circumstances that developed out of verse 1.
But in 1892, S .R. Driver insists that the Hebrew wasn't so rigid in its rules, especially about what is or not a circumstantial clause. Quote, emphasis or the love of variety is a factor, unquote. One must have a sense of the literary nature of the text.
It's literature, not mathematics. Further, even if verse 2 is circumstantial, the circumstantial with haia may represent an act completed long before. Allen concludes, quote, there is no 100 proof rule as to whether Genesis chapter 1, verse 2 is sequential or circumstantial, unquote.
In other words, Hebrew lacks an absolute rule on this grammatical issue. This opens the door to legitimately interpreting the verb in verse 2, haia ta, as became in a temporal sequence. In other words, the earth became void because of something that happened, possibly.
Some scholars want to read the first two verses as circumstantial, but as dependent clauses, hence like, quote, when God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, it was without form, et cetera.
Thus, reading it as a dependent clause follows Abraham ben Ezra, who died in 1167, and Solomon ben Isaac, who died in 1105,. F .F. Bruce wrote that he was, quote, almost persuaded that the best translation of Genesis chapter 1, verses 1 to 3 was, in the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, now the earth was waste and emptiness and darkness on the face of the deep and the spirit of God hovering on the face of the water.
God said, let there be light, and there was light. Other mid -20th century scholars were more fully persuaded. While this would seem to bolster the conclusion Lyon arrives at, nevertheless Lyon helpfully commits several pages in his essay countering this dependent clause interpretation.
Francis Anderson both interprets Hayatah as became and concludes chapter 1, verse 2 is circumstantial, but describing the circumstances arising out of verse 1, the aftermath of the original creation.
Not necessarily.
The circumstances of day 1, as Collins suggested. Further, and to complicate matters, it is a circumstantial that describes a sequence of events, effectively both circumstantial and sequential. Genesis chapter 1, verse 2, quote, is a circumstantial sentence comprised of three conjoined circumstantial clauses, the whole circumstantial to the opening time, in Genesis chapter 1, verse 1, unquote.
As circumstantial clauses with the perfect verb Hayah, Anderson compared the use of chapter 1, verse 2 with Genesis chapter 7, verse 6, quote, when the flood came, or in chapter 7, verse 10, the flood came, and in Exodus chapter 1, verse 5, and Joseph was already in Egypt.
In these cases, Hayah represents a circumstance that was the result of a series of prior events over an extended time, so Anderson considers it more likely that the meaning is, quote, the earth had become, or had come to be as a circumstance to the preceding verse, the creation of verse 1.
Hence, Anderson concludes that while verse 2 is circumstantial, it describes circumstances that are the product of a sequence of events issuing from the original creation of verse 1 prior to the first fiat in verse 3.
This issue of sequential versus circumstantial is directly relevant to whether Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 is interpreted as a title to the rest of the creation account or as the initial statement of it.
Bruce Waltke defended the proposition that it is a title, hence a framing phrase summarizing the entire passage in a three-part series of articles in Bibliotheca Sacra. John MacArthur follows him, quote, verse 1 is a general statement, unquote.
MacArthur's position seems to be that Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 is a summary in advance, like a title, and the events themselves are described beginning in verse 2 with day 1. The most obvious problem with this interpretation is that there is then no statement of the creation of the earth.
Where did the earth that is void and desolate, the deep and the waters, come from? Even if verse 1 is a title, it's still proven that day 1 dawns in verse 2 because of the three statements there before the and God said demarcating each day.
John Salehammer argues in Genesis Unbound that beginning in verse 1 is not a title to the following account, but God's original creating act. Lyon concurs, comparing verses 1 to 3 to Genesis chapter 2, verses 4 to 7 and mustering an impressive grammatical case to the conclusion that, quote, the arguments in favor of the summary statement view of verse 1 are unpersuasive and appear to be forced onto the text, unquote.
Further, he notes, the crucial issue is whether verse 2 describes conditions or events prior to day 1. The point of contention, he says, is whether the earth was created void or whether it became that way after some process.
Again, Lyon helpfully frames the discussion around the critical issues. Hence, there are two interwoven, overlapping issues whether verses 1 to 2 is sequential or circumstantial and whether Hayyata should be translated as was or became.
Became suggests a sequential interpretation and would make the young earth creationist position difficult as it would require the text to say the earth became void within day 1 before God said let there be light.
But translating it as was and interpreting it as circumstantial doesn't necessarily help young earth creationism or bolster Lyon's case. Anderson interprets it as sequential like Lyon, but writes that verse 2 describes the state of the universe after creation like Collins, setting the scene for the days.
Hence, quote, the first event is reported in Genesis chapter 1 verse 3, unquote, day 1. That's according to Anderson. Vocabulary. Salehammer essentially concludes the same with Allen and Collins against Lyon coming at it from another perspective that of vocabulary, especially Rashid, beginning.
Salehammer writes Rashid, that's beginning, always refers to an extended yet indeterminate duration of time, not a specific moment. He notes Job chapter 8 verse 7, Genesis chapter 10 verse 10, and Jeremiah chapter 28 verse 1 using Rashid in just this way.
It is a, quote, time before time, not referring to a point in time, but a period of duration of time which falls before a series of events. It says that God created the universe during the intermediate period of time before the actual reckoning of a sequence of time began, unquote.
It is then, in Collins' terms, stage-setting. Similarly, Cassinius, noting the preposition in, prefix to Rashid, that normally such nouns with prepositions, in other words, quote, specifications compounded with a presupposition, unquote, stand after the verb except, among other exceptions, quote, presuppositional specifications of time, unquote, citing Genesis chapter 1 verse 1.
If, then, Bereshit, in the beginning, is the specification of time, then why would the same event, according to Young Earth Creationist, have another specification of time, namely day 1? That is, according to Lyon, Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 to 5 is one event all occurring on day 1.
If so, why does it have two separate specifications of time? Also, Saddlehammer believes that bara, or created, in Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 refers to an indefinite period of time, which, quote, could have spanned as much as several billion years, or it could have been much less.
The text simply does not tell us how long. It tells us only that God did it during the beginning of our universe's history, unquote. Young Earth Creationist, Ken Ham, calls this a, quote, modified gap theory, and concludes that, quote, accepting billions of years is the real motive of Saddlehammer's exegesis, noting, quote, Saddlehammer proposes his idea in order to squeeze long ages into the text, unquote.
Ham doesn't explain how he is able to discern Saddlehammer's, quote, real motive. Ham exclaims, quote, no one in his right mind would believe this. It's not even in the Bible. Neither Ham nor Lyon, who cite Saddlehammer's work and his conclusions, meaningfully engages Saddlehammer's claims on vocabulary.
Intertextual commentary. Lyon turns to Exodus chapter 20 verse 11 and chapter 31 verse 17 as, quote, intertextual commentary. That is, other passages of scripture elaborating on creation, quote, indicating that the initial creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 is part of day 1 of creation week.
However, Exodus chapter 20 verse 11 and chapter 31 verse 17 in the context of giving the theological basis for the fourth commandment, do not say God created Barah, the earth in six days. They say he made Yassah it.
Admittedly, there is a great deal of overlap in the semantic range of the two words, Barah and Yassah, create and make, just as with the English words that they are rendered as. They can sometimes be synonyms as they are both sometimes translated by the Greek word Poieo in the Septuagint, and the Septuagint Barah is rendered by Poieo in Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 but by Agneto were made in chapter 2 verse 4.
In chapter 2 verse 4 the Septuagint translators had the opportunity to translate both words into the same Greek word if they believed that the two terms were interchangeable. They did not. So it's unclear whether the Septuagint translators regarded the two terms as always synonymous.
In order to show that Exodus chapter 20 verse 11 sums up all of Genesis 1 including chapter 1 verses 1 to 2 and not just the days starting in verse 3, Lion must show that make, Yassah is exactly, always synonymous with create.
Barah.
He does not deal at all with this issue although Lion frequently compares verse 1 with chapter 2 verse 4 which summarizes the creation with both verbs created Barah and made, Yassah he doesn't comment on whether there is a difference in the semantic range between the two terms.
This is another crucial omission. While often synonymous the key question for Lion's use of quote, intertextual commentary to make Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 to 2, part of the days is whether create Barah has a meaning outside the range of make Yassah.
See if Kyle believes that it does. Quote, in call, that's the verb form of Barah, always means to create and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before.
That is, create Barah refers to God's creation out of nothing, ex nihilo. Brown Driver Briggs defines Barah as shape, create, noting that it is quote, always of divine activity, unquote. Besides Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 it is used of the creation of the heavens of the earth, the universe, in Isaiah chapter 45 verse 18, of humanity, in Genesis chapter 1 verse 27, in chapter 5 verse 1 and following, chapter 6 verse 7, in Deuteronomy chapter 4 verse 32, in Psalm 89 verse 48, Isaiah chapter 45 verse 12, in Malachi chapter 2 verse 10, of the great sea creatures and of every living creature, in Genesis chapter 1 verse 21, of a clean heart, in Psalm 51 verse 12, of the north and the south, in Psalm 89 verse 13, of a cloud and fire over Zion, in Isaiah chapter 4 verse 5, of the host, in Isaiah chapter 40 verse 26, of the ends of the earth, in Isaiah chapter 40 verse 28, of transformed nature, in Isaiah chapter 41 verse 20, of the heavens, of Isaiah chapter 42 verse 5, of Israel, in Isaiah chapter 43 verses 1 and 7 and 15, of salvation and righteousness, in Isaiah chapter 45 verse 8, of the smith and the ravager, in Isaiah chapter 54 verse 16, of the fruit of lips, in Isaiah chapter 57 verse 19, of a new heaven and earth and new Jerusalem, in Isaiah chapter 65 verse 17 and following, of new things, like the ground swallowing up the Korahites, in Numbers chapter 60 verse 30, or a woman encircling a man, in Jeremiah chapter 31 verse 22, of wind, in Amos chapter 4 verse 13, and so forth.
That's bara. Meanwhile, the verb in Exodus chapter 20 verse 11, yasa, translated as make, is defined with two primary meanings, do or make, besides Genesis chapter 2 verse 4, both terms are used in Isaiah chapter 45 verse 7, making yasa, peace, and creating bara, evil.
The question, though, is whether create can have a meaning outside the range of make. It can. Create, bara, is only used in the Old Testament with God, as his subject, whereas make, yasa, is not so specific.
If chapter 1 verse 1 is describing creation ex nihilo, then create, bara, is the proper term. If chapter 1 verse 3 to chapter 2 verse 3 is describing God working on the earth, already created, in verse 1, then make, yasa, is the proper term.
So chapter 2 verse 4 summarizes both the creation ex nihilo of verse 1 and the making of a habitable earth in the seven days in parallelism. If Exodus chapter 20 verse 11 was meant to be interpreted to encompass the entire creation, from the beginning in verse 1, then bara would have been the proper term, but it uses yasa, the making of something out of preexisting material.
Therefore, Exodus chapter 20 verse 11 can legitimately be interpreted as to only summarize Genesis chapter 1 verse 3 to chapter 2 verse 3, the main storyline, not necessarily the four scene-setting statements of the first two verses.
Given the context of Exodus chapter 20 verse 11, which is the fourth commandment about the Sabbath day, the specific reference to make, yasa, is to the seven days. To assume that those seven days include the creating of Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 to 2 is to beg the question this essay is written to answer.
Conclusion.
Beginning at the beginning, Lyon and other young earth creationists have not shown a sound exegetical basis to claim that Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 to 2 is part of day 1. The literary marker of the beginning of day 1, as with each of the other days, is the refrain, and God said.
Day 1 is thus marked as beginning in verse 3. That the same phrase is also used of three other significant creation events besides the dawning of new days doesn't detract from its function as a literary signal, like a rooster crow, that a new day has begun.
Hence, absolute creation occurred in an unspecified time before day 1. Whether the earth was or became void and desolate is debatable, but Genesis chapter 1 verse 2, the third part, tells us that for an unspecified span of time, the spirit of God was hovering, or hovered, over the water on earth.
All of this occurred prior to the first, and God said, the green light that starts each day. At this point, as far as dating the earth from the Bible, the meaning of the days is moot. Whether the days are literal 24-hour days, or long eras, or a literary framework, is quite beside the point for dating the creation from Scripture.
Genesis simply does not provide the unbroken chronological chain back to creation ex nihilo. So, as John Lennox observed, the beginning of Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 is not dated to day 1, as many assume.
The initial creation happened before day 1. How long before? Genesis does not tell us. So, quite apart from the input of science, without the pressure of the modern academic consensus, based purely on exegesis, that is, interpretation of the Bible, from the text of Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 to 3, we conclude that by separating the absolute beginning, in verse 1, from day 1, verse 3, the Bible leaves the age of the universe undisclosed.
Jeremy D. Lyon contributed scholarly work seeking to tie the first two verses to day 1 in a way that closes the door on the possibility of any time before day 1, and thus bolstering the exegetical case of young earth creationism.
He's helpfully focused on the most crucial matter in the debate, whether the first two verses are prior to day 1. His work is substantially better than that of much of popular young earth creationism, which often concentrates on strained interpretations of the conjunction of, and skips to a literalistic interpretation of day, as though that was the crucial issue.
And so doing, he's made some helpful contributions, such as defending the traditional interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 to 2 as independent clauses, rather than the dependent clause interpretation that was in vogue among some 20th century scholars.
However, despite his subjective claims that his quote, traditional interpretation is quote, natural and straightforward, his failure to deal substantially with the, and God said, refrain, demarcating the beginning of each day, the scene-setting grammar and vocabulary of the first two verses, the vuv consecutive beginning verse 3, and the differing semantic ranges of create and make, means that Lyon fails to prove his case.
So our undoctrinated reader would not find Lyon's interpretation natural or straightforward. Such a reader likely would not assume that the first two verses are part of day 1. The Bible doesn't begin with day 1.
It begins with an absolute creation, ex nihilo, that sets the stage for the seven days. So, until young earth creationism can show that the creation occurred on day 1, young earth creationism dogmatism is also ex nihilo.
