Is Genesis 1:1-2 part of the first day?

Question

What evidence is there, either for or against, the idea that Gen 1:1-2 are not part of the first day but rather that the first day starts with Gen 1:3?

The following information isn't strictly necessary for the question, but if you'd like more context as to why I'm asking

The significance of this question is whether the earth could have existed for a very long time before man was created. I find that many Christians automatically dismiss this idea because they automatically equate it as an argument for evolution. They reason that evolution is false, therefore this must be false because many Christians who believe in evolution use it to justify their position.

I, however, do not believe in evolution but I still do believe that the earth is very old. But this is a position that just doesn't seem to compute when I talk to other Christians. They automatically assume I must be defending evolution. It's pretty annoying.

So I thought I might do some research on the topic to see if there are any compelling arguments for or against Gen 1:1-2 being part of the first day. I notice that many Bibles format it separately but I don't know how to find out whether that's simply because of the publisher's bias or if there is something in the structure of the original language or maybe even in the oldest copies of the texts we have to indicate it should be formatted as such.

Answer 1

There is no, so-called, "gap". Let us observe several things about the literary structure of Gen 1.

1. The ancients had no concept of what we now call "planet earth"; so it is not surprising that its creation is not mentioned in the Gen 1 account.

2. Indeed, the closest we get to the actual creation of "earth" (Heb: erets) is on day #3 where the record states:

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Thus, earth (ie, dry arable land) was created on day #3. Further, the heavens were created on day #2 as per the record:

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “heavens.”

3. The creation activities for each day follow the absolutely strict formula:

And God said, let there be ...

... and it was so. Evening and morning were the "nth" day.

Day #1 must also follow this same pattern and thus, day #1's activity begins in V3 and NOT v1.

4. This means that V1 &2 form two functions for the narrative that follows:

• V1 - a heading that summarizes all that follows - the creation of everything about our world
• V2 - a preparatory statement that says that the earth was "formless and void" before day #1. However, when God had finished the creation of our world, it was pronounced (in obvious contradistinction to V2) "very good" (V31).

5. The creation of the sun and moon is not recorded in this passage. All that is stated is that God created lights in the expanse of the heaven (“sky” NIV, not outer space or the starry heaven), which according to Gen 1:6 is what separated the waters below (what became on day 3 rivers, lakes and seas) from the waters above (presumably the source of dew, rain and snow in the atmosphere). Hebrew has perfectly good words for “sun” (שֶׁמֶשׁ shemesh) and “moon” (יָרֵחַ yareach) that the author obviously goes to some trouble to avoid using.

This is confirmed by the statement that these "lights" were placed in the firmament between the waters above and waters below, ie, our atmosphere (compare V14 to V7, 8). The sun and moon do not exist in our atmosphere but far beyond it; however, their light does exist in our atmosphere.

Thus, all that is described in Gen 1 is the creation of our world consisting of sky and arable land with all its animals and plants. Again, there is no record of the creation of planet earth which had presumably been created at some earlier time.

This can be confirmed by the description in V16 which literally reads:

And God made the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- to rule the night;

Thus, there no record in Gen 1 of God creating the stars. They must have been created at a much earlier time so that their light was visible on earth at all (some stars are many millions of light-years distant). Further, there is no record of God creating the water that covered the planet - the water already existed at the beginning of creation week.

Therefore, a simple reading of Gen 1:1–2:3 suggests that a formless, worthless, dark, lifeless, watery planet already existed at (ie, before) the beginning of creation week. This suggests that God had previously created it – a suggestion supported by Job 38:4-7,

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? … Who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

Thus, other life forms existed elsewhere in the universe (apart from God) who witnessed the creation of the Earth during the planet’s very foundation.

Answer 2

Answer

Genesis 1:1-2a is not part of the first day.

The first day begins at Genesis 1:2b onwards.

Explanation

Earth was not empty when God created it, so confirms the Scripture

The earth originally was so breathtakingly beautiful that the angels of God shouted for sheer joy!

“When” God “founded the earth” “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:4,7).

The true God who is perfect never makes anything “empty”!

“For so says Jehovah, Creator of the heavens; He is God, forming the earth and making it; He makes it stand, NOT CREATING It EMPTY, but forming it to be lived in. I am Jehovah, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:18).

But something happened.

A Satanic Rebellion

The chief Archangel, Lucifer along with other angels was given the jurisdiction in heaven and over the earth (Ezek 28:13-14; Jude 1:6).

But at one time, Lucifer tried to evict God from His throne. He wanted to be the God:

“For you (Lucifer) have said In your heart, I will go up to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars (angels) of God, and I will sit in the mount of meeting, in the sides of the north. I will rise over the heights of the clouds; I will be compared to the Most High” (Isaiah 14:13-14).

This is what Jude is describing:

“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation” (Jude 1:6).

The earth had a negative effect after the sin of man. Sin always has negative result.

Then what happened after the great sin of Lucifer?

“and the earth ‘hayetah’ without form and empty (bohu)” (Gen 1:2).

The “hayetah” can also be translated as “became” as we can see in other places of Scripture. [See the Annexure]

So, “the earth became without form and empty” because of the sin of Lucifer and his angels.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12).

Thus Lucifer was called Satan or the Devil because he was always opposing God in everything.

Now what?

Renewal of Earth

Psalms 104:30 provides the answer:

“You (Jehovah) send out Your Spirit, and they are created; and You RENEW the face of the earth”.

This is exactly what we see in the rest of Genesis 1:

“and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters” (Gen 1:2b).

God started creating things on earth.

Genesis 1:3 onwards is simply God renewing the face of the earth that was destroyed after the great rebellion of Satanic star wars!

The earth was not CREATED in six 24 hour days.

But the face of the earth was RENEWED in six 24 hour days for human beings.

Considerable time has elapsed between the creation of earth and the Satanic rebellion when earth became useless.

How long did it exist like that?

We do not know.

ANNEXURE

The following reasons made me convinced that the Earth became (hayetah) without form (tohu) and void (bohu):

1. Isaiah 45:18:

“For thus said YHWH, Creator of the heavens, He is God, Former of earth, and its Maker, He established it—He did not create it empty (tohu), For He formed it to be inhabited: “I am YHWH, and there is none else”.

God never created the earth as formless and void. As is His usual manner, God creates perfectly. He does not create anything partial or incomplete. God originally created the earth as a habitable place.

2. Job 38:4, 7:

“Where were you when I founded the earth?........ when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

When God originally created the earth, it was so breathtakingly beautiful that the angels sang together praising God and shouted for joy. This would not have happened at the establishment of the earth if it had originally been formless and void in darkness.

3. The word “was” (hayetah) in the clause “the earth was formless and void” can also be translated as “became” as in the following verses:

“And the man called the name of his wife, Eve; because she became (hayetah) the mother of all living” (Gen 3:20; LITV).

“And Joseph made it a law until this day on the land of Egypt, the fifth part is for Pharaoh; only the land of the priests being excepted; it did not become (lo hayetah) Pharaoh's” (Gen 47:26;LITV, ASV, ESV, GNB, JPS, KJV etc.).

“And there was hail, and fire flashing in the midst of the hail, very heavy, which never had been in all the land of Egypt since it became (hayetah) a nation” (Exo 9:24; LITV, ASV, ESV, JPS, KJV etc.).

Thus, it is also possible to translate Gen 1:2 as:

“and the earth became (hayetah) without form and empty”.

4. Psalms 104:30:

“You send out Your Spirit, they (the living things) are created, And You renew the face of the earth (ground)”.

This is exactly what happened in Genesis first chapter. God’s Spirit was moving (Gen 1:2) and God renewed the face of the ground of the earth and its atmosphere.

So we could say fairly well that the earth “became” formless and void due to the Satanic rebellion.

Answer 3

The Hebrew in Genesis 1 actually says for each day “and then there was sunset, and then there was sunrise, day X.” How many hours are there between 9pm at night and 9am in the morning? That would be 12 hours. So, each day ends with the morning that starts the next day. Which leads to the question – What was the first morning of the first day? That would be when the first light showed up on Earth. Job 38:9 says that the Earth was covered in a blanket of cloud. This is how the light came when God said, let there be light – it broke through. Notice that the Hebrew “bara” for create is missing in Genesis 1:3. But where is the Hebrew word “bara” for create? It is found in Genesis 1:1 with the creation of the universe and the Earth. Thus one could say that the only place that “bara” is used for creation of the sun (contained in the universe) was in Genesis 1:1. Day four only has the sun, moon, and stars to shine through fully for man’s benefit. It says they were “nathan” – appointed at that time. The Hebrews didn’t always start their day with evening. That was acquired when they were captive in Babylon. Does this leave room for macro-evolution? Not at all. The creation week days are still regular, 24 hour, sequential, consecutive, days with each proclamation of God fulfilled withn each day. This is not the Gap Theory - rather it is Young Biosphere Creation. How old is the universe? the Bible doesn’t say. How old is the Earth? Again the Bible doesn’t say. At the same time, I would not be one to trust radimetric rock dating. Nor would I believe in Lucifer's flood. Noah's worldwide flood caused all or almost all of the geologic column.

Answer 4

You might look at my answer to:
genesis - Are there any denominations that accept the gap theory? - Christianity Stack Exchange.

It includes a list of some of the denominations that believe that both "The days of creation were about 6000 years ago." and "The universe is billions of years old", plus my summary of the theory.

Here are some excerpts from some of their publications:

Is the Bible’s record of Earth’s history incompatible with scientific discoveries? A resounding no! And you do not have to change your beliefs to fit the science. The Trumpet and its predecessor, the Plain Truth, have been publishing these same Bible principles for about 60 years, before much of this new scientific research has emerged. Genesis is not some murky, unscientific attempt to postulate a 6,000-year-old Earth and universe by writers ignorant of dinosaurs or the Ice Age. Scientific discoveries over the past several centuries have only served to confirm what was in the Bible already.

Setting aside the flawed dating methods, when comparing the modern scientific timeline of Earth with the biblical timeline, you see a remarkable synthesis of events. Scientists are at a loss to explain many of these events: the Quaternary extinction event, humans and animals descending from a single male and female ancestor, the rapid development of new life at the start of the Cenozoic Era, the extinction of life at the end of the Mesozoic Era, and the very origin of life and the universe.

The Bible explains all of these things. And it explains why.
— The Prehistoric World vs. Genesis

The effect of God plunging Satan into Earth’s surface—or of other fallout of space objects—could have left the planet devoid of life. This explains Genesis 1:2, that the Earth became “without form” (meaning desolate and deserted) and “void” (meaning an indistinguishable ruin).

The Earth remained like this for perhaps millions of years until God began renewing the surface of the Earth (Psa. 104:30; Gen. 1:2). This involved bringing back plant and animal life that had been killed—just in different forms. God then told those creatures to “be fruitful and multiply…and let fowl multiply in the earth” (vs. 22).

When Scripture is examined properly, it shows science and the Bible are in perfect harmony.
— What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Did dinosaurs and human beings walk the earth together before the great biblical flood described in the book of Genesis? If so, why does human history not record this? If not, where do dinosaurs fit in the history of planet Earth? Many sincere people assume that the biblical account in Genesis reveals our universe, and our planet, to be about 6,000 years old. Watch this program to discover what many miss when reviewing the Genesis account of creation, and learn why “young Earth” creationists are wrong.
— Why Creationists Are Wrong

As the famous paleontologist G.G. Simpson once remarked: "The most puzzling event in the history of life on the earth is the change from the Mesozoic Age of Reptiles, to the ... Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on a stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries and the leading parts are all played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the previous acts" (Life Before Man, 1972, p. 42).

This apparently reflects the change from the pre-Adamic world to the world of man. Certainly there are smaller reptiles in our world, but they are insignificant in comparison to what existed in the previous age.

What has been presented here is not the only "ancient earth" explanation available, but it seems to make the most biblical sense. It is the only explanation I know of that accepts the literal 24-hour days of the creation (or re-creation) week and, at the same time, makes room for an indefinite period before the creation of mankind that could include the dinosaurs and previous eras.

Recent geological and astronomical discoveries, such as cosmic expansion and signs of meteor impacts at the geologic Cretaceous-Tertiary border, better known as the "K-T boundary," have only served to substantiate this view.

So, if anyone tells you he or she doesn't believe in the Bible because of a dilemma with the dinosaurs, let that person know there is more than the young-earth explanation available—one that fits well, as best we know, with the biblical facts.
— Where Do the Dinosaurs Fit?

Answer 5

Most translations of Genesis 1:1 are not perfect. Beresht does not mean in the beginning. Bareshit does. One of the ways the first verse of the Bible can be translated is this:

When God began to create heaven and earth (JPS, 2006)

So the first thing that happened was the revealing of the light. In Judaism, they call it haOr haGanuz (the hidden light) and believe that this is the light of the Messiah. It is also how John talks about the beginning in the prologue of his gospel.

Like Dottard said above, the creation of the earth starts on the day three.

Also keep in mind that the main purpose of the first chapters of the Bible is theological. They debate with the Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation stories and correct them.

Answer 6

For completeness only, I am adding some material to inform some the discussions around this subject of "Biblical" Creation Theories.

Amongst Christians who even discuss origins, there are several interpretations of the Genesis creation account which are tabulated below. This material is included to show that Christian views of origins vary widely.

Interpretation	Description	Comments
Theistic Evolution “TE”	The “six days” of Genesis 1 is mythical and the real process took millions or billions of years. This is an attempt to meld atheistic theories with a veneer of Biblical connection by using God to guide the process. It does overcome the deep-seated problems of unguided evolution such as abiogenesis and speciation by suggesting that these were divine interventions of an unspecified nature.	It makes a complete mockery of the actual Biblical record (by largely ignoring it) which clearly states (in several places) that the creation process was just 6 literal days long about 6000 years ago. It also contradicts the chronology of the rest of Genesis, etc. That is, its relation to the Biblical record is very tenuous.
Gap Theory “GT”	ASSUMES (without any support) that: (a) Gen 1:1 refers to the entire universe, and (b) There is a huge time gap of (perhaps) billions of years between v1 and v2	This has most of the problems of theistic evolution with all the extra problems of Darwinian Evolution as well. In doing this, most of the actual Biblical data must be ignored or creatively re-understood.
Terrestrial Interpretation “TI”	Assumes, by the definitions in the Gen 1, that Gen 1:1 refers to the earth and sky only and that since the first day begins in v3 that the earth and much else had been previously created. This means the universe and the earth could be millions or billions of years old, but, all life on earth is just 6000 years old; and most sedimentary rock is about 4500 years old, largely (but not necessarily exclusively) from the flood.	Non-sedimentary rock may be quite old, but the sedimentary rock will all be as young as all the fossils. The latter could be a problem in some circles.
Young Earth Creation “YEC”	Assumes that Gen 1:1 refers to the entire universe and that this was about 6000 years ago in earth time. A number of variants have been proposed to account for the “star-light” problem but none have yet been satisfactory.	Creates two major problems: (a) Age of non-sedimentary rock is all young by assumption, and (b) Star-light problem – how can we see stars more than 6000 light years away, even in our own galaxy or adjacent? (eg SN1987, 160,000 ly distant). Dating sedimentary rock could be a problem.

Any Biblically based theory of origins and creation must account for these matters:

• The apparent age of non-sedimentary rock – rocks that obviously contained radio-active material that has taken much more than 6000 years to decay.
• The presumed age of sedimentary rock and their contained fossils
• The star-light problem – how can we see stars that are more than 6000 light-years away?
• The fact that all theories, other than “YEC”, were unknown before about 1800. That is, novel theology should be treated with suspicion.

Dating sedimentary rock as young is actually less of a problem than it appears because there is no way to actually date it unambiguously. Fossils are dated by the rock that contains them and vis-versa. This is a classic circular argument. However, it is obvious that many fossils that are preserved in/across several layers makes a mockery of the common methods of dating sedimentary rock.

The final “problem” of novel theology is more apparent than real for several reasons:

1. The question of the age of the earth and the universe only arose in 18th century – before this time all commentaries and science simply assumed a recent origin unquestioningly. It was only about 1800 when Wallace, Lamarck and Darwin began their work, that anyone even thought about the age of the earth – until then the question was largely moot.
2. Before Kepler, no-one even understood how big the universe was. Indeed, before Galileo no one even realized that the planets in the Solar system were bodies orbiting the sun! The universe was assumed to be, even by theologians, similar (no one was sure) to the ancient idea of a ball of rock inside a celestial sphere or one of another such variants. That is, the idea of earth being a planet was unknown; and therefore, the recent distinction between the earth and the rest of the universe was unknown.
3. Huygens, Galileo and Newton with their early telescopes first showed that the planets in the Solar system were orbiting bodies. A revolutionary (pardon the pun) idea which landed Galileo in hot water. It was more than 100 years later that anyone had any idea how large the Solar system was. In fact, Australia was “discovered” by Capt. James Cook because he was transporting people around the earth to accurately measure the transit of Venus to get some idea of the size of the Solar system (it was only partially successful).
4. The star-light problem only arose about the same time because people simply assumed that light travelled at infinite speed until the time of Roemer (few people believed his results at the time). It was much later than Roemer that anyone realized we lived in a galaxy. Until Hubble’s research (1925) no one even realized that there were lots (and lots) of other galaxies.

Thus, until about 1800 the age of the universe and its considerable size was a moot point and largely undiscussed.

Answer 7

Professor John Lennox, of Oxford, addresses this question in an interview hosted by the Veritas Forum. The interview appears on YouTube, titled "The Bible and the Age of the Earth? John Lennox at SMU". He maintains that the first two verses of Genesis are written in a different form of past tense than we see in the sequence of days. Also, each of the creation days begin with "And God said..." He also points out that the past tense verbs are different in the first two verses from those we see in mention of the creation days. I recommend the interview.

Answer 8

When dealing with Biblical Cosmology, it is important that one doesn’t impose a later secular and modern cosmology onto the text of Scripture to somehow give credibility to one or the other. Proper hermeneutics demands addressing the text in its original context and there are sufficient documents from BC that corroborate the cosmology of the ancients which looks nothing like that which started to surface in the Roman Catholic ranks from 500 years ago and onwards.

We have the text in question and we can allow the text to speak for itself.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬ ‭

We can go back and forth about the first two verses being titles/subtitles, though this would be a modern idea and we don’t have any other such examples in Genesis much less the rest of the Bible or other contemporary writings.

Let’s see what God says, a direct quote Ex20:1 and not a prophet

“for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬ ‭

Notice any similarities? The heavens and the earth were added to the first six days

Logically we cannot be speaking about the beginning when God began and then have multiple first days. It’s a singular subject. When did God start? In the beginning. When is the beginning of not at the start? What day would the start fall on if this is the beginning of the heavens (plural) and the earth? On the first day. It is the moment that time began, space was ‘created’, for matter visible or invisible to exist in.

If there were no heavens prior to this beginning on day one that means there were no heavenly beings that existed. Hence why the ancients understood that one needs a place/space and a time and a substance for a non eternal (or a creature/created entity) to exist in.

We also have the witness of the NT passages

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” ‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭3‬ ‭

If all things does not mean all things then He isn’t the Creator of all things. This is further clarified by Paul who helps explain the Hebrew textual understanding that all had to include the heavenlies not merely only the earthly

“for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬ ‭

“Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭48‬:‭13‬ ‭

We have witnesses throughout the Scriptures that tell us day 1 was in fact Day 1 and that the heavens and the earth were made on Day 1, what witnesses from Scripture explicitly state that verses G:1&2 are not part of that first day?

Rather what we have is a systematic effort to redefine words like firmament as being redefined and translated as an ‘expanse’ thus losing its clearer meaning to accommodate a secular cosmology, we have claims that the ancients had no concept of planets as planets are described in modern cosmology because this is true, they didn’t describe them as does modern cosmology, and this to discredit the ancients so as to make them less intelligent/knowledgable. Though often times it is God being quoted describing His Creation not men, so it becomes irrelevant what men knew or didn’t know, unless God also didn’t know.

You don’t believe in evolution but a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest Georges Lemaître is the origins for the Big Bang theory that even makes possible the idea of an old earth and evolution theoretically. This too is a very new addition to modern cosmology less than 100 years 1931.

Darwin book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” has never attempted to show the origin of life or abiogenesis

I mention these to say this, what is your authority? If you are going to deny some of the authority of Scripture why not deny all of it and discredit the Bible entirely? Why try to shoehorn modern, secular, godless theories into a sacred text? Why not instead question the assumptions and the origins of these modern theories, their underlying agenda to discredit the Bible and thereby make shipwreck of men’s faith in the Creator of this universe? Why do you instead scrutinize and question the Bible?

(This was not an attack on the Roman Catholic Church this was stating facts from history which are factually true)