Expert: Marilyn - 1/16/2012

Question
I would like to know which manuscripts present "was" and which ones present "became" in Genesis 1:2.

Answer
Greetings;

Modern Bible translators use all available copies of the ancient texts to come up with their translation. The NIV (which I am most familiar with) indicates where there is a discrepancy between the copies with a foot note. I have not found any notation indicating a discrepancy with this word, therefore I conclude that all available copies of the ancient text are in agreement..

According to my research, the word in Genesis 1:2 which has been translated "was" is "hayah" or "hyth" (I do not have Hebrew alphabet to properly write that word here). That word can be "was" as we would understand it, or "it came to pass," or "to come about," or "became." According to this site: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV this word appears again in Genesis 1. In verse three "hayah" becomes "be" when God says "Let there be light." Translators use context to help give meaning to any given word and apply it in ways that make sense to English readers. The Bible is amazingly pure given how many times it has been copied and how many translations exist. A comparison of more modern copies with the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed this back in the 40's when they were discovered.

The contrast between Genesis 1:1; 1:2 and 1:3 is a point of contention between those of us who struggle to interpret what the Bible means. Persons who do not believe that the "big bang" is what's happening in Genesis 1:3 have different ways of interpreting these verses.

The Hebrew for Christians web site (which I often find wonderful) explains that what God created in Genesis 1:3 is not physical light, but "cosmic light." http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Bereshit/Fire/fire This idea does not necessarily contradict what science has come to believe, that after an initial explosion of energy (light) the universe was dark for quite a long while before the stars suddenly lit up. This does not disagree with the Bible. It's not until Genesis 1:14 that the sun is "created," or began functioning as an thing which emits light.

Most of those who do not believe what God did is described by what Sir Fred Hoyle dubbed the "big bang" see Genesis 1:2 as explaining that what God initially created was a sort of chaotic soup that existed in darkness out of which He then brought order. His first act in making order of the soup was to add the creation of light.

The other theory of interpretation, or what is commonly called the "gap theory," explains that God created everything and part of that everything was this something else that existed before what we know of as the universe came into being and that something else was destroyed, then God re-created a universe from the mess, Genesis 1:2. (Oddly enough, and perhaps to these believers' great chagrin if they're even aware of this is that the idea of a "gap" jibes with scientists' multiple universe theory and the steady state which espouses, in part, that universes are created, expand, then collapse and are recreated all the time. The multiple universe theory and the steady state exist because atheistic scientists didn't like the idea of a beginning which meant that there has to be a Beginner--that is Someone who made everything begin. The steady state theory has been revised since its original inception to include the idea that universes expand and then implode and are reborn but apply it to our specific universe. The multiple universe theory cannot be proved because it would require seeing beyond the edge of our universe which we have not yet been able to do.)

My personal theory of interpretation is rooted in the idea that often in ancient times storytellers would retell a story multiple times from different points of view or with different objectives in mind in order to convey the most information. Western story telling, as we inherited it from the Greeks, is linear and as such must leave out certain aspects of the story which distract from the main plot. We tend to find sub-plots and side-plots distracting rather than informative.

It is my believe that Genesis 1:1 is a complete story in and of itself. It tells us all the pertinent facts that we need to know right away: There was a beginning before which there was only God and God created all matter and everything else that exists.

Genesis 1:2 is another story which requires more digging and thought to understand, but is separate from the creation story which begins in verse 3. Whether Genesis 1:2 should rightfully be translated "was" or "became" I do not know. However, it does clearly say that the earth was or became a mass of chaotic matter. It does not say that the entire universe was in a mess, just the earth. Isaiah 45:18 states that God did not create the earth to be a place of void and chaos, but created a place where He intended human beings to live. Since this was God's original purpose, something must have happened to change His previously ordered creation into a mess. I find the explanation in Isaiah 14 beginning with verse 12 and in Ezekiel 28 also beginning with verse 12.

In these passages we begin with a human king and the prophet quickly switches to the power behind the throne: satan. Satan is described as the "guardian cherub" of the "garden of God," which is most likely earth. In these passages we read the account of how Satan became conceited and rebelled against God; how he attempted to take God's throne away from Him and was defeated. We know that this rebellion had to have happened before Adam and Eve were created, otherwise why would satan, in his previous state of perfection, be trying to misguide and destroy God's favored humans? Further, Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created all that exists, before that nothing existed except God. Angels are created beings. They are part of what was created in Genesis 1:1. So, satan's rebellion must have occurred at some point after the beginning but before Adam and Eve.

Genesis 1:21 in the NIV says, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems..." Those words "great creatures" and "of the sea" are translators attempts to make sense of the Hebrew by using context to help them with difficult words. The difficult words are, "taninim gedolim," according to Gerald Schroeder in his book "The Science of God." Schroeder studied this himself and found Hebrew scholars who helped him with the translation. "Gedolim" is easy, it means "big" or "great." "Taninim" was harder. But fortunately the singular form appears elsewhere.

Moses' rod first becomes a snake in Exodus 4:3. Later, in Exodus 7:10 the word used is "taneen" or "reptile." In Exodus 7:15 the word used is again "nahash" which is "snake." Thus, we can conclude that what Genesis 1:21 is talking about, at least in part of the verse, are the "Great Reptiles" or dinosaurs. (And translators have made one of their rare mistakes.) We know from the fossil record that dinosaurs became extinct in some sudden cataclysmic event. Jesus said, in Luke 10:18 that He saw satan fall from Heaven like a bolt of lightning. Could satan's disgrace as he was expelled from Heaven have had a physical effect on planet earth? It is my belief that it did and his crash into the earth made it "formless and empty" as the Bible describes in Genesis 1:2. This story is encapsulated in one verse with no explanation for the end result it describes or where it fits into the longer narrative which begins with verse 3. Except for the clues about the "great reptiles" and our present scientific understanding that dinosaurs were suddenly made extinct, I couldn't even begin to figure this out. The fact that mammals didn't show up on the scene in any significant numbers until dinosaurs were out of the picture is a fact that does not disagree with the Bible at all. It fits right in.

Beginning with Genesis 1:3 until the first few verses of Genesis 2 the creation story is told without the details of satan's fall. It is my opinion that the only part of the story of satan's fall that God thought mattered here in Genesis was the end result as described in Genesis 1:2.

It's important to remember that of all the Bible, except for the description of satan's fall in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 and maybe a few other passages, Genesis 1 is told from God's point of view, not from our point of view. How could Genesis 1 be from our point of view, we're not even on the scene yet. How would God feel about satan's part in His creation story--making dinosaurs extinct when he was expelled and crashed into the earth? Clearly, God didn't want him included! He makes no mention of satan before his sin, his rebellion or expulsion anywhere in the creation story. Instead, God's focus is on how He began, with the creation of light and proceeded from there to the creation of man, the beings made in His Image. And He calls the whole "very good." To God, satan is nothing more than an annoying blip, an insignificant bump in the road. And He hoped Adam would view him in the same way.

Satan implied to Eve that God didn't want the first human couple to be like Him, that somehow God was stingy and selfish. But actually, God uses satan to give Adam the chance to be just like Him, to cast satan out, to choose God and His Love by his own free will and walk in light forever. But Adam didn't choose the path God hoped he would choose, instead, he also chose to rebel against God. And in so doing, he gave more significance to satan than God ever intended him to have. And set in motion God's "plan B" send the Redeemer, His Word Made Flesh to pay for sin and retrieve humanity from sin's prison.

Thus, it is my belief, we have three versions of the creation story: Genesis 1:1; 1:2 and the longer, more detailed narrative beginning with Genesis 1:3.

How long God spent making the universe and all that lives in it is another point of contention. The words "evening and morning" can also be translated "disorder to order" with equal validity as can the word "day" be translated "daylight hours," "a 24-hour period," "sunrise to sunrise" or "sunset to sunset" (depending on whether you are Jew or Gentile) or "era." In the case of "era" as a translation of "day" we use that word in the same way all the time. Your Dad might say, "Well, back in my day we..." or an historian might say, "The Roman Day.." meaning the time in which ancient Rome existed. Therefore, how long God spent creating everything is not so clearly defined as some would claim. Based on the context, God is defining a "day" based on objectives met, disorder to order, the first, second, third...era.

Exactly what is a "day" when the sun does not begin to shine until verse 14 anyway? We define day by when the sun shines. And if Genesis 1 is told from God's point of view, whose definition of a "day" would He use? On Venus a day is about 243 earth days long. The human centered interpretation of Genesis 1 based on our day is kind of silly, if you ask me. It's rather like the church fathers of Galileo's day insisting that the earth was the center of the universe because man is God's crowning creation.

Nathan, I applaud your efforts to come to understand what God means to say in Genesis 1. Please press onward and pray continually for insight. Like the rest of us, you must continue asking questions, study and come to your own conclusion by faith because that is how God intends us to operate. The most well versed scientist and even the atheist believes what he believes by faith. I pray that the Lord will illuminate this for you and give you peace.

Sincerely,

Marilyn