Curious: When the text of Genesis supports six literal days, what do you think the text means would have happened on those days? What would forming, shaping, and assigning function actually translate to? And would not this interpretation mean that Genesis is incorrect?
The distinction (trying to make and ask) I’m making is between two different kinds of divine activity that the Hebrew text itself differentiates. Bara is used for God’s unique acts of initiating something fundamentally new. Asah and yatsar overwhelmingly refer to forming, shaping, preparing, and assigning function to what already exists.
Genesis 1:1 uses bara for the initial bringing‑into‑existence of “the heavens and the earth.” After that point, the six days describe God’s work of ordering and preparing that already‑created world.
How verses 21 and 27 fit the pattern
These are the two deliberate exceptions where bara reappears:
-
Genesis 1:21 — bara marks the introduction of living creatures as a new category within creation.
-
Genesis 1:27 — bara (three times) marks the introduction of humanity in God’s image, a new category of being.
In both cases, bara signals a new identity or category, not the material fabrication of bodies from nothing. The physical forming of the human body, for example, is described later with yatsar (“to form”).
What the six days describe under this reading
If Genesis 1:1 is the actual creation event, then the six days describe God:
-
Structuring the cosmos into ordered realms
-
Separating and naming categories
-
Assigning functions (“for signs, seasons, days, years”)
-
Installing the luminaries as functionaries
-
Preparing the land for life
-
Filling the ordered realms with their appropriate occupants
-
Commissioning humanity with a role
These are functional and organizational acts, not material manufacturing steps.
Does this imply Genesis is “incorrect”?
No—because this reading doesn’t assume Genesis is giving a material‑fabrication sequence. The text’s own vocabulary and structure point toward a description of how God orders, assigns purpose, and prepares the world He already brought into existence.
Under this reading:
-
Genesis 1:1 is the material creation of the universe.
-
Genesis 1:2–31 is the ordering and preparation of that creation.
-
Bara appears only when the text marks a new category of life or identity.
-
The six days remain “days,” but they describe forming, shaping, and assigning function, not the material origin of the cosmos.
So the question “Wouldn’t Genesis be incorrect?” only applies if Genesis intended to describe material fabrication. The text itself suggests it is describing function, order, and purpose, not physics or chemistry.
Let’s try another tack, because I’m still not understanding it. When in the history of the world would these six days, presumably directly sequential, have happened? Are any of these ordering, etc., events things an observer would have noticed or that would have left observable traces?
While I do not hold to six-day creation of any sort, I think you could make the exegetical argument you are putting forward. The KJV translation of the initial creation as “formless and void” conveys a western idea of philosophical nothingness that may be foreign to ANE thought, and I prefer “desolate and unihabited” in keeping with usage elsewhere in scripture. Thus the initial creation, unsuitable for man, is as you suggest formed and ordered ultimately into a hospitable garden.
Having said that, the meaning of any language is never determined by rules of grammars, lexicons, or dictionaries. Put another way, grammars, lexicons, and dictionaries are themselves compiled by examining examples of usage in literature. Most of the time, that provides a reasonable guide to the meaning of a particular instance, but context and the idiosyncrasies of the author might indicate a different spin. Sometimes there is ambiguity which can be argued either way - even the Supreme Court has majority and minority opinions on what was intended to be precise language.
2 Likes
I really appreciate the way you framed this, especially your point that meaning ultimately comes from usage in context, not from lexicons dictating meaning from above. That’s exactly why I’m trying to get clear on whether the Hebrew usage patterns actually allow the reading I’m proposing, not whether they force it.
Where your comment helps me is in highlighting that the ANE world didn’t think in terms of “philosophical nothingness,” which makes the tohu wabohu state in Gen 1:2 fit naturally as an uninhabited, unproductive world rather than a statement about absolute non‑existence. That’s precisely the kind of environment where verbs like asah and yatsar, forming, shaping, appointing, make sense as the focus of the six‑day sequence.
The part I’m still trying to nail down is whether anything in the Hebrew itself prevents reading Exodus 20:11 as referring specifically to that six‑day asah work. Moses had the option to say “For in six days the LORD created (bara) the heavens and the earth,” but he didn’t. He used the same verb that dominates Genesis 1:3–31. That seems at least linguistically coherent with the idea that Genesis 1:1 is the initial bara event, and the six days are the later asah work of forming and assigning.
So my question isn’t whether this reading is required, only whether there’s any grammatical, syntactical, or usage‑based reason it can’t be what Moses intended. So far, I haven’t found one, but I’m very open to being shown something I’ve missed.
If you’re aware of any counterexamples where asah clearly must mean “create from nothing,” or where bara and asah are used interchangeably in a way that would undermine this distinction, I’d be grateful for the references.
1 Like
Scripture never tells us when the six days occurred in physical history, because the six days aren’t describing physical events that would leave observable traces. For example Gen 1:11 makes that explicit: “Let the land produce vegetation… and the land produced vegetation.” That’s the same natural process the land carries out every day. Nothing in the text suggests a unique, one‑time, geologically detectable event. The six days describe God assigning order, roles, and functions to the world He had already created in 1:1, not material changes that would show up as historical markers.
If you do a word study of bara, you’ll find that it never unambiguously refers to ex nihilo creation. Whereas it oftentimes very clearly refers to creation in circumstances in which the object of creation already exists.
Most scholars these days view verse 1 as being in construct in that verse 1-3 are a literary introduction. Similar to how chapter 2 has its own literary introduction in verses 4 to 7.
The alternative would be to consider verse 1 as part of a broader literary introduction. In which nothing actually happens until verse 3. For example, the NRSVue says “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was…”
Not that verse 1 is an event. But rather, it may very well just be leading up to the actual creation, which of course occurred in 6 days (rather than there being two separate creations going on in chapter 1).
The literary introduction does not inherently suggest a separate ex nihilo event in verse 1.
And bara may also involve shaping or forming things. For example: Joshua 17:15, to cut down a forest.
Human beings can also be the subject or persons doing the creating as well. For example, in Ezekiel 21:24 Ezekiel is commanded to bara a sign post.
Or 1 Samuel 2:29 bara yourselves fat. People are to make themselves fat.
Only to say that, when Exodus reiterates that God made the world on 6 days, it’s not clear that this excludes verse 1. Rather he’s referring to the entire chapter. As opposed to Moses mysteriously leaving out an earlier creation event or that he forgot to mention it for some reason.
I don’t think the “literary introduction” view fits the Hebrew structure of Genesis 1:1–3. Verse 1 is a complete clause with a perfect verb (baraʾ), which in Hebrew narrative marks a real, completed event. Verse 2 begins with a waw‑disjunctive (“Now the earth was…”), which only makes sense as a circumstantial description of the state resulting from verse 1. And verse 3 begins the waw‑consecutive chain that starts the six‑day sequence. If nothing actually happens until v.3, then v.2 has nothing to describe and the grammar collapses.
On the verb issue: the examples you cite (Joshua 17:15; Ezekiel 21:24; 1 Sam 2:29) all use baraʾ in the Piel stem, which has different meanings (“cut down,” “set up,” “make yourselves fat”). Genesis 1 uses baraʾ exclusively in the Qal stem, and in the Hebrew Bible the Qal of baraʾ is always used of God and never means “shape” or “cut down.” So those passages don’t redefine the verb in Genesis 1.
Regarding Exodus 20:11, the verb there is ʿasah (“made”), which aligns with the forming, separating, and assigning work in Genesis 1:3–31, not with the baraʾ act of v.1. Exodus is summarizing the six‑day ʿasah work that grounds the Sabbath command. That summary doesn’t need to include the initial baraʾ act of v.1, and it doesn’t erase it. Genesis still distinguishes between the initial creation in v.1 and the later ordering work in vv.3–31.
So the grammar of Genesis requires v.1 to be an actual creative event, v.2 to describe its result, and v.3 to begin the six‑day sequence. Exodus 20:11 is summarizing the six‑day ʿasah work, not redefining the structure of Genesis 1
You’re right that bara never by itself unambiguously means ex nihilo. Hebrew doesn’t have a verb that encodes that concept directly. But two things are still true:
-
Bara is always used with God as the subject, which marks it as a uniquely divine creative act, not ordinary craftsmanship.
-
In Genesis 1:1, the question isn’t “does bara mean ex nihilo?” but what is the narrative describing as the initial state from which God begins His creative work?
So the real issue becomes: If Genesis 1:1 is not describing ex nihilo creation, then what pre‑existent thing is God creating from? The text gives only two possibilities:
-
Creation from nothing — God brings the “heavens and the earth” into existence as the initial act.
-
Creation from something — but the text never identifies any pre‑existent material. The “formless and void” state in v.2 is already the result of God’s act in v.1 if v.1 is taken as a main clause.
This is why many scholars who read v.1 as a main clause (not a construct) see it as describing the absolute beginning of the cosmos, even if the verb bara itself doesn’t lexically encode “ex nihilo.”
Even those who read v.1 as a construct phrase (“When God began to create…”) still have to explain where the initial “deep” or “waters” came from. The text never attributes them to anything other than God.
(Combining my posts so you may see deleted posts below)
Many Hebrew scholars and professional translators would disagree with your assessment. I’m not a Hebrew scholar myself, but it seems fair to point out that translations such as the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, the New Revised Standard Version / New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, and the Common English Bible understand Genesis 1:1 as a dependent or construct-like clause (“When God began to create…”).
As far as I’m aware, perfect verbs in Biblical Hebrew frequently appear in subordinate or temporal clauses, so the presence of baraʾ does not by itself require Genesis 1:1 to be an independent narrative statement.
And regarding verse 2, you mentioned that if nothing happens until verse 3 then verse 2 has nothing to describe. Personally, I don’t find that persuasive. Hebrew narrative may provide background or circumstantial information before the main storyline begins. For example, in Book of Genesis 2 the narrative describes the condition of the earth (“no shrub of the field had yet appeared…”) before the first narrative action occurs. So, describing the state of the earth prior to the first main narrative verb in Genesis 1:3 doesn’t seem grammatically problematic, so far as I can tell. I often consider translations like the NASB helpful in this regard, where each verse is connected with the word “And” as opposed to “Now”. Or the NRSV. In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void…then God said “Let there be light”.
It helps to read Genesis chapter 2, where a similar literary introduction is used. The same style of literary introduction is also found in several extrabiblical creation texts as well.
I really like how you point out the waw disjunctive in verse 2. I think the main response here is that just because verse 2 has a waw disjunctive, it doesn’t automatically mean that verse 2 is a result of verse 1. Rather, it could simply be continuing or elaborating on verse 1 as part of a dependent clause.
And lastly, you said, “Even those who read v.1 as a construct phrase (‘When God began to create…’) still have to explain where the initial ‘deep’ or ‘waters’ came from. The text never attributes them to anything other than God.”
Many creation texts from the ancient Near East begin with deep waters and never explain their origin, so this isn’t unusual for literature of the time. I’d be curious, why do you feel Genesis needs to answer this question?
You also said that the formless earth is already the result of God’s act in verse 1, but of course, that assumes verse 1 is an independent clause. If it isn’t, then it naturally follows that the preexistent material is simply the formless, empty earth described in verse 2 (and the deep). From there, the six days of creation describe God giving form to the heavens and the earth (days 1-3, the “realms”) and filling them with life/inhabitants of said realms (days 4-6). In that sense, the text already addresses the questions you raised.
And so by the end of day 6, creation is no longer formless, nor is it empty. Because it has been given form and filled. Genesis 2:1 states, thus the heavens and the earth were finished (tohu) and all the host of them (bohu). This makes the story clean and simple, no double creation events going on with ex nihilo anachronisms and Moses leaving out details etc. Just 1 creation that takes 6 days, from formless to having form.
1 Like
And just so I stay on topic here, I’m going to say how the above brings us back to your original post.
In my view, Genesis 1:1–31 describes one continuous six-day creation, with verse 1 introducing God’s creative act (bara), verse 2 describing the earth’s initial formless state, and verse 3 beginning the first narrative action of God forming, shaping, and filling the world. The asah verbs in 1:3–31 and in Exodus 20:11 simply describe God’s six-day work of forming, ordering, and assigning functions within that same initial creation week. So, rather than implying a separate pre-creation, asah highlights the process and the roles/functions God is giving the creation during the six days.
And one of the easiest ways to understand this interpretation would be to simply look at chapter 2, which begins in essentially the same way. Genesis 2:4 is similar to 1:1. Verses 2:5-6 are similar to Genesis 1:2. And then, much like Genesis 1:3, Genesis 2:7 is the first creative act. All the verses leading up to the first act are just background conditions that are setting the stage. They’re preparing you for the story.
Like if I were to say, “There once was a time where it was dark and rainy outside, and gloomy, and the land was barren. And then the clouds opened up and like the burning sun as bright as the heavens, Gandolf came flying through on his eagle to save us”. The story doesn’t need to tell you where the rain and the barren land first came from, because that’s not what the story is about. The story is about the hero. It’s about God. It’s not about…the big bang or something like that. And so the text doesn’t have to explain material origins.
And this resolves the tension that may be experienced if someone holds to sailhamers view. They might wonder why Exodus 20:11 sounds comprehensive, yet may exclude an initial creation event in Genesis 1:1. But as a solution, we could simply view 1:1 as part of a literary introduction, thus eliminating the tension. We are left wondering where the pre existent material comes from, however that is a common aspect of ANE literature and isn’t actually an unreasonable observation. It’s actually expected.
We would expect Genesis to start that way based on other examples of ANE literature. Such as Kar 4 for example. Or Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, or Genesis chapter 2 which begin with the same structured literary introduction.
1 Like
But your objections make no sense.
Which is as it should be if it is a summary description of a completed event. Or ar you arguing that the six-day creation was still ongoing at the time verse 1 was written?
It makes perfect sense if it describes the initial state. Indeed, it perfectly fits the typical initial state of Middle Eastern creation myths - the chaotic Primordial Ocean.
As I’ve pointed out this is wrong. We get a summary of the events, the description of the initial state, then the more detailed description of the events.
This begs the question. If there is no ex nihilo creation there must be an unexplained initial state - and v2 perfectly fits the initial state we should expect. To say otherwise assumes that there must be an ex nihilo creation.
I’m trying to keep up with the conversation here. Are you claiming that AdrianB’s references to:
…are incorrect, or what exactly?
You’re right that Hebrew perfects can appear in subordinate clauses and that Hebrew narrative sometimes gives background information before the main action. Those are real features of Biblical Hebrew. But they don’t require the dependent‑clause reading of Genesis 1:1—they only allow it. Many Hebrew scholars (Cassuto, Waltke, Wenham, Sailhamer) still see Genesis 1:1 as an independent clause for syntactic and contextual reasons, including the waw‑disjunctive in v.2.
My argument doesn’t depend on denying the dependent‑clause option. It rests on Moses’ consistent verb choices: bara for the initial creation in 1:1, asah for the six‑day forming/ordering work in 1:3–31, and asah again in Exodus 20:11. That intertextual pattern remains the same regardless of which syntactic reading of 1:1 one adopts.
I understand why you point to ANE texts that begin with unexplained waters, but that’s actually part of what convinces me Genesis is doing something different: those texts treat the waters as divine or eternal, while Genesis goes out of its way to present the deep (tehom) as non‑divine and fully subordinate, which makes me think the author isn’t following the ANE pattern so much as deliberately correcting it. Even if someone reads Genesis 1:1 as a dependent clause, nothing in the Hebrew makes me think the deep is eternal; its appearance feels no more like a claim of preexistence than the serpent’s sudden appearance in Genesis 3. What keeps pulling me back is the verb pattern: bara is consistently used for the initial act of bringing something into existence, while asah describes the six‑day work of forming, ordering, and assigning functions, and Exodus 20:11 summarizes that six‑day work using asah, not bara. So when you suggest that the formless earth in verse 2 is simply “preexistent material,” that only works if we assume the very thing we’re trying to prove—that verse 1 isn’t an independent clause, and it still leaves the origin of that material unexplained in a way Genesis itself never implies. I don’t see two creation events or a forced ex nihilo reading; I see one initial act of creation in Genesis 1:1 and one later week of divine craftsmanship in Genesis 1:3–31, and Exodus 20:11 reinforces that structure rather than collapsing it. For me, that intertextual consistency is what makes the traditional independent‑clause reading feel more coherent: it accounts for the origin of the deep without treating it as eternal, it fits the waw‑disjunctive in verse 2, it preserves the bara/asah distinction, and it aligns with the way Moses himself summarizes the six‑day work. That’s why I still think Genesis presents an initial creation followed by a literal week of forming and filling, not a single six‑day creation of both matter and structure.