Affirming 6×24‑hour days, using asah to support Gen 1:1 as the creation event

Conversation
43

None of the points you raise actually touch the linguistic issue I’m (trying to …) addressing. I’m not arguing for a “literary introduction,” nor am I denying the standard Hebrew narrative structure. My claim is narrower and text‑driven: Moses consistently distinguishes between bara (“create”) and asah (“make/appoint”), and Exodus 20:11 uses asah, not bara.

That distinction matters regardless of how one parses Genesis 1:1–3.

  1. On Genesis 1:1 and the perfect verb. A perfect verb (bara) can introduce either a completed event in sequence or a completed event that stands outside the subsequent narrative. Hebrew narrative uses both patterns. So the grammar does not require that v.1 be part of the six‑day sequence, nor does it forbid it. Your objection assumes a single narrative function for the perfect that the language itself does not demand.

  2. On the waw‑disjunctive in v.2. A waw‑disjunctive marks a break and introduces a circumstantial clause. But circumstantial clauses can describe either:
    – the result of a previous action, or
    – the state at the time the main narrative begins.
    Both are grammatically legitimate. You’re asserting the first as if the second were impossible, but Hebrew grammar allows both without strain.

  3. On the waw‑consecutive in v.3. The narrative chain beginning in v.3 is compatible with multiple readings of v.1:
    – as a summary,
    – as a prior creation event, or
    – as the first act of the sequence.
    Your claim that the grammar “collapses” unless v.1 is part of the six‑day sequence is simply incorrect. Hebrew narrative frequently uses the pattern: completed event → circumstantial clause → main action.

  4. On the “primordial ocean” argument. Appealing to ANE parallels doesn’t resolve the Hebrew grammar. Genesis 1:2 does not say the waters were uncreated, eternal, or divine. It simply describes the state of the earth at the time the narrative begins. Whether that state existed for a moment or for an age is not specified. Importing ANE cosmology as determinative assumes what you’re trying to prove.

  5. The actual issue: why asah in Exodus 20:11? Even if I granted every one of your structural claims about Genesis 1:1–3, they still would not answer the question I raised: Why does Exodus 20:11 say God asah (“made/appointed”) the heavens and the earth in six days, rather than saying He bara (“created”) them in six days?
    Moses had both verbs available. He uses:
    – bara in Genesis 1:1 for the initial creation of the heavens and the earth.
    – asah and yatsar throughout Genesis 1:3–31 for God’s six‑day work of forming, shaping, and assigning functions.
    – asah again in Exodus 20:11 when referring specifically to the six‑day work.
    This is the core linguistic point: Exodus 20:11 matches the vocabulary of Genesis 1:3–31, not the vocabulary of Genesis 1:1. Your objections about “summary statements” and “initial states” do not address this lexical distinction.

  6. What this means for the reading I’m proposing. The Hebrew allows, and the verb choices support, the following:
    – Genesis 1:1 describes the initial bara creation of the heavens and the earth.
    – Genesis 1:3–31 describes the six literal days of asah/yatsar work—forming, ordering, and assigning functions.
    – Exodus 20:11 refers specifically to that six‑day asah work, not to the initial bara event.

    This reading honors the narrative structure, respects the grammar, and takes Moses’ verb choices seriously. None of your objections provide a linguistic or exegetical reason to reject it.

44

John, good question. The examples Adrian listed are real, but they don’t overturn the point I’m making because they come from much later Hebrew than Genesis. The meaning of bara broadens over time.

In the earliest Hebrew, the period of Genesis and Exodus, bara is consistently used only of God and refers to a uniquely divine creative act, not ordinary human activity. The human‑subject examples Adrian cited come from Joshua, Samuel, and Ezekiel, all of which reflect later semantic drift.

Even in those later passages, bara doesn’t mean “shape” or “craft” the way yatsar does. It means something like “bring about a condition” or “establish a state.” That’s why Ezekiel can “bara a signpost”—he’s not carving it; he’s setting it up. And why people can “bara themselves fat”—they’re bringing about a condition.

None of that changes how the verbs function in Genesis 1, where the contrast is deliberate:
– Bara (1:1) — the initial act of bringing the heavens and the earth into existence
– Asah / yatsar (1:3–31) — the six‑day work of forming, shaping, and assigning functions
– Asah again in Exodus 20:11 — referring specifically to that six‑day work

So the later human‑subject uses of bara don’t undermine the argument. They simply show that the verb’s range expanded over time. In the creation account itself, Moses maintains a clear distinction between bara and asah, and that distinction is central to the point I’m making.

45

I appreciate the thoughtful pushback. I need to clarify where I think our readings diverge, because the issue for me isn’t whether bara and asah ever overlap, they clearly can, but how Moses uses them within the creation account itself and in Exodus 20:11, where he summarizes that account for Israel.

  1. On Genesis 2:3 (“created to make”). I personally don’t read Genesis 2:3 as collapsing the verbs into synonyms. It’s a merism, a pairing of two terms to summarize a larger whole. Hebrew does this constantly (“heaven and earth,” “day and night,” “flesh and bone”). The phrase bara la’asot doesn’t mean the verbs are identical; it means God ceased from all His creative work, however described. A summary statement doesn’t erase the patterned distinctions in the narrative.

  2. On Genesis 1:21 vs. 1:25; yes, bara is used for sea creatures and asah for land animals. But the pattern still holds:
    – Bara appears at structural turning points (1:1; 1:21; 1:27).
    – Asah and yatsar dominate the day‑by‑day forming and assigning work. Even Sailhamer, Walton, Collins, Wenham, CS Lewis and many many others who disagree on many things note that bara is used sparingly and strategically. The verbs overlap, but they are not used interchangeably.

  3. On Nehemiah 9:6. Nehemiah is post‑exilic Hebrew, centuries later. The semantic range of asah broadens over time. My argument is about how Moses uses the verbs in the Pentateuch, not how later writers summarize creation. Later summaries don’t control earlier usage.

  4. On ANE parallels and the “construct clause” reading. I would agree the ANE texts often begin with initial conditions. But that’s precisely why I beleive Genesis 1:1 stands out: it uses bara, not a description of pre‑existing chaos. The text doesn’t say the waters were eternal or uncreated; it simply describes the state at the time the narrative begins. ANE parallels are interesting, but they don’t determine Hebrew syntax.

  5. On ex nihilo being “anachronistic.” Even if Israel didn’t articulate creation ex nihilo philosophically, the text still distinguishes between:
    – bringing something into existence (bara)
    – forming/ordering what already exists (asah/yatsar). That distinction doesn’t require later metaphysics; it’s embedded in the verbs themselves.

  6. Why I still see two stages in the text. For me, the decisive point isn’t ANE background or theological tradition, it’s Moses’ own summary in Exodus 20:11. If Moses wanted to say God created the heavens and the earth in six days, he had the perfect verb for it. He chose asah, the verb that dominates the six‑day forming/ordering work in Genesis 1:3–31. Genesis 1:1 uses bara. That’s the textual pattern I’m trying to account for.

  7. What would falsify my view? Two things I beleive would make me reconsider:

    The first: if Exodus 20:11 used bara instead of asah. The issue woud be results. no question sasked. That would collapse the distinction and strongly support a single‑stage reading.

    or if Genesis 1 used bara throughout the six days. But I think bara is Exodus 20:11 would be more prwerful. But it doesn’t. It uses asah and yatsar almost exclusively for the day‑by‑day work.

    Because neither of those conditions is met, I still see a meaningful distinction between:
    – Genesis 1:1 — the initial bara creation
    – Genesis 1:3–31 — the six‑day asah/yatsar forming and assigning
    – Exodus 20:11 — Moses’ own summary of that six‑day asah work. That’s why I read the chapter as describing two phases of divine activity, not two “creation events,” but two modes of creative work.

46

I don’t disagree that Genesis 1 engages ANE motifs, but that doesn’t really touch the point I’m making. My argument isn’t that Genesis is uninfluenced by ANE patterns, it’s that Genesis handles the waters differently than the ANE myths do. In the ANE texts the waters are divine or eternal; in Genesis they’re inert and subordinate. That’s not simply “borrowing”; it’s reframing. But that’s secondary to the main issue you raise.

The core question is whether there is a real textual pattern in how Moses uses bara and asah. You say the pattern “doesn’t seem to be real” because bara appears only in 1:1, 1:21, and 1:27, and because Genesis 2:2–3 uses both verbs in a summary. But that actually reinforces the point I’m making rather than undermining it.

  1. The sparing use of bara is the pattern. lThe fact that bara appears only at three structural points is exactly why it stands out:
    – 1:1- the initial bringing‑into‑existence of the heavens and the earth
    – 1:21 - the introduction of conscious life
    – 1:27 - the creation of humanity in God’s image. These are not random placements. They mark major transitions in the narrative. Meanwhile, the day‑by‑day activity, light, sky, land, vegetation, luminaries, animals, etc., is overwhelmingly described with asah and yatsar.
    So the pattern isn’t “bara never overlaps with asah.” The pattern is:
    – bara = used sparingly at key moments
    – asah/yatsar = used for the six‑day forming, shaping, and assigning work. That’s a real pattern, even if the verbs can overlap in other contexts.

  2. I simply don’t see how or whaere Genesis 2:2–3 collapse the verbs.You point to Genesis 2:2–3 using both bara and asah in a summary. But summary formulas in Hebrew routinely use paired terms to refer to the whole of something. It’s a merism, not a lexical equation. “Created to make” doesn’t mean the verbs are identical; it means the author is wrapping up the entire scope of God’s work. Summary statements don’t erase distinctions in the narrative itself.

  3. Exodus 20:11 remains the decisive data point. Even if we set Genesis 1 aside for a moment, Exodus 20:11 still matters: “For in six days the LORD made (asah) the heavens and the earth…” If Moses wanted to say God created (bara) the heavens and the earth in six days, he had the verb for it. He chose asah, the verb that dominates the six‑day sequence in Genesis 1:3–31.

    This is the part of the pattern that your objection doesn’t address:
    – Genesis 1:1 uses bara for the initial creation.
    – Genesis 1:3–31 uses asah/yatsar for the six‑day forming and ordering.
    – Exodus 20:11 summarizes the six‑day work using asah, not bara. That’s why I see two phases of divine activity, not two “creation events,” but two modes of creative work.
    4. Why I think Genesis 1:1 still fits the pattern best. You say only Genesis 1:1 “clearly fits” my reading. But the pattern isn’t built on a single verse; it’s built on how the verbs function across the Pentateuch:
    – bara is never used in Exodus 20:11’s six‑day summary
    – asah is never used in Genesis 1:1
    – asah dominates the six‑day narrative
    – bara appears only at major structural transitions
    So Genesis 1:1 isn’t an outlier, it’s the anchor of the pattern.

47

As an outsider, it’s of no concern to me what the intended meaning of Genesis 1:1-3 might be. What I want to know whether its of serious concern to anyone else here, and if so why. Is the interpretation important to the message intended by the author(s)?

1 Like
48

That’s fine. I disagree, but I’m comfortable with people interpreting this differently. To me it makes more sense that the text is following a common literary pattern where a narrative begins by describing the background conditions before the main action begins. Genesis 1:1–2 reads very similarly to introductions found in several ANE texts, and it also structurally parallels the way Genesis 2 introduces its narrative. You’re certainly free to see Genesis as intentionally doing something different, but I think it’s fair to say the text itself doesn’t decisively settle the question.

“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.”

I don’t think it’s eternal either. I just don’t think that Genesis 1:1 is describing its creation in a separate way than the rest of chapter 1. I think the construct view makes more sense in alignment with the historical and contextual background of the ANE. Remember, the dependent clause translation does not assume an eternal deep. It simply doesn’t address the question of where the deep came from. Which is common and normal among ANE texts. It’s actually to be expected.

“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.”

I don’t think so. The verb pattern is interesting, but the narrative itself shows overlap. Bara appears within the six-day sequence (1:21, 1:27), not only in the initial creation. Genesis 2:3 even pairs bara and asah together for the same creative work. That suggests the verbs highlight different aspects of God’s activity rather than two distinct stages of creation. So while the pattern may support your reading, it doesn’t logically require it.

I’m simply pointing out a common and legitimate alternative. That is, the construct view or dependent clause translation. You don’t have to agree. The text is ambiguous, and I’m fine with that reality.

“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,”

I don’t view it as eternal. And it’s fine if you hold to an independent clause interpretation. I hold to the traditional dependent clause interpretation. I’m fine acknowledging different traditional positions and ambiguity in the text.

“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.”

I don’t see any reason why the dependent clause translation wouldn’t fit the waw disjunctive. A waw-disjunctive often introduces background information rather than a sequential event, so it works just as naturally with a construct-clause reading describing the initial condition of the earth.

Overall, I think the topic is ambiguous. I’m fine acknowledging multiple potential options for interpretation. It’s all good, and thanks for sharing your thoughts

[Mod edit to add quoting – Dan]

49

I’m not sure I understand your concern that the “origin of the material is unexplained.” In ANE literature, it’s completely normal for creation narratives to begin with preexistent waters without explaining their origin. This is a common structural feature: a dependent clause introduces the context, followed by background information, and then the main action.

For example, in Enuma Elish, the narrative begins with primeval waters without explaining where they came from; in Atrahasis, the toil of the gods is described before the main action of creation; and in Kar 4, the earth and heavens exist in a preliminary state before the gods act. Genesis 2 shows the same pattern: verses 5–6 describe background conditions before the main creative act in verse 7.

All of these texts begin with a dependent clause, follow with parenthetical background information that describe the conditions that already exist. Then they follow with the main clause.

Genesis 1 follows the same pattern. Verse 1 can be read as a dependent clause (“When God began to create…”), verse 2 provides background conditions, and verse 3 begins the main creative action. There is no need for an independent pre‑6-day creation event or ex nihilo creation, that would be foreign to the ANE conceptual and literary context.

So the absence of an explanation for the origin of the waters is not a problem for the dependent-clause reading; in fact, it aligns perfectly with the historical and literary expectations of the time. The text’s silence on the origin of the waters is what we should expect, not what we should object to.

[Mod edit to add quoting]

1 Like
50

Even given the considerable presumption that Genesis and Exodus actually do reflect early Hebrew, we have next to zero extra-biblical sources and Biblical instances are rather limited, so that assertion would seem to be unjustified. Like people everywhere, we may expect that the Hebrews talked about trade and goings on and a great deal, and we have virtually none of that.

The nuance of a verb may reflect more its subject, in any language. English, for instance…

God created everything.

Michelangelo created a masterpiece.

Same verb, but the sense is defined by broader understanding - in itself the verb does not indicate whether prior material is involved or otherwise.

It should be observed that if indeed bara was a common Hebrew word, it could not commonly mean “creation out of nothing”, for the simple reason that apart from God, nobody creates anything out of nothing.

2 Likes
51

Of course the reason I raised these points was in direct reply to your attempt to deny that the opening verses are an introduction - and indeed the title you gave this thread indicates that you are denying it.

Then perhaps you should have answered my more recent post which directly addresses this issue,

This is untrue - your objection demanded a “single narrative function” while my reply denied it.

Again I only asserted that the first was possible - in response to your denial.

Yet again you were the one who claimed that the “grammar collapses”. I have to wonder how you think that pretending that your errors were mine is supposed to lead to productive discussion.

I was simply trying to prove that my reading was possible over your objections. So again your response fails.

That the points only address the claims they were aimed at is hardly a weakness - which your concession implicitly admits. And I must point out that an answer based on a “distinction” that apparently does not exist is hardly a good one. Especially as it is far from clear that you do explain Exodus 20:11. Why would it “only refer to *“*asah work”?

Again I will point out that refuting your objections to an alternate reading is hardly trying to establish that reading as the only possibility. My objections succeeded in their object as you admit above.

2 Likes
52

Thanks for the compliment. However, aren’t all 5 books thought by scholars to come from the same period, with Joshua having been written before Genesis?

1 Like
53

I’d be curious of your thoughts on my response here:

If the perfect verb does not determine the narrative structure, then it also cannot be used as evidence that Genesis 1:1 must describe a separate creation event prior to the six days as opposed to an alternative position of the dependent clause translation.

I actually agree that the waw-disjunctive introduces a circumstantial clause and that it can describe either a resulting state or a background condition. My point is simply that the background-condition reading fits naturally with the dependent-clause interpretation of verse 1. In that structure, verse 2 describes the state of the earth when the creative work begins in verse 3. As opposed to God’s creative work beginning in verse 1.

I agree that the narrative chain beginning in verse 3 can work with multiple readings of verse 1. Hebrew narrative can certainly follow the pattern you described: completed event → circumstantial clause → main action. I don’t think anyone is denying that possibility.

My point is simply that the grammar alone doesn’t decide the issue. The waw-consecutive in verse 3 tells us where the narrative sequence begins, but it doesn’t tell us whether verse 1 is a summary statement, a prior creation event, or part of a temporal/dependent clause.

That’s why I keep bringing up the broader literary context. In ANE literature (Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, Kar 4) and even within Genesis itself (Genesis 2:4–7), we repeatedly see the pattern: dependent clause → background information → main narrative action. If Genesis 1 follows that same pattern, then verse 1 naturally reads as a temporal introduction (“When God began to create…”), verse 2 describes the background conditions, and verse 3 begins the narrative.

I agree that ANE parallels don’t determine Hebrew grammar. My point is simply that the grammar itself is ambiguous. Once that’s acknowledged, the broader literary context becomes relevant for understanding how the text may function.

And in the ANE world it’s very common for creation narratives to begin by describing primordial conditions without explaining the origin of the waters. So the fact that Genesis 1:2 doesn’t explain where the waters came from isn’t unusual—it’s exactly what we would expect in that literary context.

I’d be curious of your thoughts on my response here:

I agree that the reading you’re proposing is grammatically possible. My point throughout the discussion has simply been that the Hebrew allows multiple readings. The independent-clause interpretation, the dependent-clause interpretation, and the summary reading are all grammatically viable. Once that’s acknowledged, the verb choices alone can’t settle the question, especially since bara appears within the six-day sequence (Genesis 1:21, 1:27) and Genesis 2:3 pairs bara and asah together. So while your interpretation works, it isn’t the only reading supported by the text.

3 Likes
54

So the only pattern is that bara is only used occasionally and that you feel for some reason that the places it is used are more important than the places it isn’t.

That really doesn’t seem to be much of a pattern at all - especially as it’s based on a subjective judgement. Nor is it a pattern that indicates that Genesis 1 is a creation event apart from the six days.

Exodius 20:11 doesn’t seem to even support your claim. Since instances of bara appear within the six day narrative I don’t see why the use of asah alone is significant.

1 Like
55

Paul, I think you may be misunderstanding the actual claim I’m making. I’m not arguing that bara is “more important” than asah, nor am I assigning subjective weight to the occurrences. The point is much narrower and linguistic: Moses consistently uses different verbs to mark different kinds of divine action, and Exodus 20:11 uses the verb that aligns with the six‑day forming/ordering work—not the initial creation event of Genesis 1:1.

A few clarifications that may help:

1. The pattern isn’t about frequency but semantic domain. I’m not claiming bara is “special because it’s rare.” The point is that Hebrew verbs carry distinct semantic ranges, and Moses uses them with precision.

  • bara — bringing something into existence or inaugurating something new

  • asah — forming, fashioning, preparing, appointing, assigning

  • yatsar — shaping or molding

These distinctions are widely recognized in Hebrew lexicons and commentaries. The argument is simply that Moses uses these verbs in ways that track with their semantic domains.

2. Genesis 1:1 uses bara; the six‑day sequence overwhelmingly uses asah and yatsar

This is not subjective—it’s just the text.

Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth.”

Genesis 1:3–31: The verbs shift almost entirely to asah and yatsar, describing God’s forming, ordering, and assigning functions to what He already created.

That’s the linguistic observation Sailhamer and others highlight.

3. Exodus 20:11 uses asah, not bara. This is the key point you didn’t address.

Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the LORD made (asah) the heavens and the earth…”

If Moses intended to say “God created the heavens and the earth in six days,” he had a perfectly good verb—bara—and he had already used it that way in Genesis 1:1. Instead, he uses asah, the same verb used throughout the six‑day forming/ordering narrative. That’s not subjective; it’s a straightforward linguistic correlation.

4. The presence of bara inside the six‑day narrative doesn’t negate the pattern. You mentioned that bara appears within the six‑day narrative, which is true—but that is irrelevant to my specific claim.

The argument is not:

  • “bara never appears in the six days.”

The argument is:

  • When Moses refers to the six‑day work as a whole, he consistently uses asah, not bara.

That’s exactly what we see in Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17.

5. The question remains: why does Moses avoid bara in Exodus 20:11? If Exodus 20:11 were meant to say “God created everything in six days,” the expected verb would be bara. But Moses doesn’t say that. He says God asah—formed, fashioned, ordered, appointed—the heavens and the earth in six days. That is perfectly consistent with:

  • Genesis 1:1 as the initial creation (bara)

  • Genesis 1:3–31 as the six‑day forming/ordering (asah)

  • Exodus 20:11 referring specifically to that six‑day forming/ordering work (asah)

So the question I’m raising is simply linguistic: Is there a textual or exegetical reason to ignore Moses’ verb choice in Exodus 20:11 and treat it as if he had used bara instead of asah?

If there is, I’m genuinely open to hearing it.

56

Oh boy that’s a lot :slight_smile: I agree with you that the grammar of Genesis 1:1–3 allows multiple structural readings. My point isn’t that the perfect, the waw‑disjunctive, or the waw‑consecutive force my interpretation—they don’t. The issue I’m raising is narrower and lexical: when Moses refers specifically to the six‑day work, he consistently uses asah, not bara.

A few quick clarifications:

  • Genesis 2:3’s pairing of bara and asah doesn’t collapse the distinction; it simply shows the verbs can overlap in summary statements. The question is how Moses uses them when he is being precise, not when he is summarizing.

  • The isolated uses of bara in 1:21 and 1:27 don’t erase the broader pattern: the six‑day narrative overwhelmingly uses asah and yatsar for the forming/ordering work.

  • Nehemiah 9:6 using asah for creation doesn’t change the fact that Moses himself uses bara for the initial creation (Gen 1:1) and asah for the six‑day work (Gen 1:3–31; Exod 20:11; Exod 31:17).

So the core question remains: If Exodus 20:11 were referring to the initial creation of Genesis 1:1, why does Moses avoid bara and instead use the verb that characterizes the six‑day forming/ordering work? That lexical alignment is what my argument rests on, not on any single grammatical feature of Genesis 1:1–3.

I’d be interested in how you account for that specific verb choice in Exodus 20:11

57

that’s a fair question, but the issue isn’t whether the Pentateuch was written in the same general period. The point is that the examples Adrian cited (Nehemiah, later prophetic texts, post‑exilic Hebrew) come from much later stages of the language than the Hebrew of Genesis and Exodus. Hebrew shifts over time, and later writers often use bara and asah more interchangeably (althoguh I have some reservation with that but never the less) than Moses does.

Within the Pentateuch itself—regardless of one’s view of authorship—the pattern is consistent:

  • Genesis 1:1 uses bara for the initial creation of “the heavens and the earth.”

  • Genesis 1:3–31 overwhelmingly uses asah and yatsar for the six‑day forming/ordering work.

  • Exodus 20:11 uses asah when referring specifically to that six‑day work.

So my point isn’t about dating Genesis relative to Joshua; it’s that Moses’ own usage shows a lexical distinction that later Hebrew doesn’t preserve as clearly. That’s why later examples don’t overturn the pattern I’m pointing to in the Torah itself.

If you think the Pentateuch doesn’t reflect that internal consistency, I’d be interested in which passages you see as counterexamples within the Torah.

58

I think we’re talking past each other a bit. Most of what you’re pushing back on concerns claims I’m not making. I’m not arguing that Genesis 1:1 can only function one way, nor that the grammar “collapses” unless it’s read my way. I’ve repeatedly said the grammar allows multiple structures. My point is narrower: your replies haven’t yet addressed the lexical question I raised about Moses’ verb choice in Exodus 20:11.

A few clarifications:

  • When I note that both circumstantial‑clause options are grammatically legitimate, I’m not denying your reading—I’m saying the grammar alone doesn’t settle the issue either way.

  • When I say the grammar doesn’t collapse, I’m responding to your earlier claim that my reading requires violating the narrative sequence. It doesn’t.

  • When I point out that ANE parallels don’t determine the grammar, I’m not denying your reading is possible—I’m saying they don’t adjudicate between the options.

Those points aren’t attempts to “pretend your errors are mine”; they’re simply correcting misattributions so we can stay focused on the actual question.

And that question is still this: If Exodus 20:11 were referring to the initial creation of Genesis 1:1, why does Moses avoid bara and instead use asah. The verb he uses throughout Genesis 1:3–31 for the six‑day forming/ordering work?

You’ve argued that the distinction “does not exist,” but the Pentateuch itself shows a consistent pattern:

  • bara in Genesis 1:1 for the initial creation of “the heavens and the earth.”

  • asah and yatsar throughout the six‑day sequence for forming, shaping, and assigning.

  • asah again in Exodus 20:11 when Moses refers specifically to the six‑day work.

Pointing out that bara and asah can overlap in other contexts doesn’t explain why Moses uses asah here, in a passage explicitly summarizing the six‑day activity.

So the question remains: What linguistic or exegetical reason is there to treat Moses’ verb choice in Exodus 20:11 as insignificant?

If you think asah in Exodus 20:11 is meant to encompass the initial bara of Genesis 1:1, I’d be interested in how you justify that from Moses’ own usage rather than from later, broader Hebrew patterns.

59

I’m not arguing that bara inherently means “creation out of nothing,” nor that the verb itself encodes metaphysics. My point is simply that in the Hebrew of Genesis and Exodus, Moses uses bara and asah in distinct ways, and that distinction shows up in how he narrates the creation account.

A few clarifications:

  • We don’t need a large extra‑biblical corpus to see the pattern; we only need to observe how Moses himself uses the verbs within the Pentateuch.

  • In that corpus, bara is consistently used for uniquely divine acts (Gen 1:1; 1:21; 1:27; 2:3), while asah covers forming, fashioning, preparing, and appointing—activities that can be divine or human.

  • The English analogy (“Michelangelo created a masterpiece”) doesn’t really map onto Hebrew usage, because Hebrew verbs tend to have narrower semantic ranges and rely less on metaphorical extension.

So the point isn’t that bara must mean “creation ex nihilo,” but that Moses doesn’t use it for ordinary human activity, and he doesn’t use it in Exodus 20:11 when summarizing the six‑day work. He uses asah, the verb that characterizes the forming/ordering activity of Genesis 1:3–31.

That’s why the lexical distinction matters for the question I’m raising: Exodus 20:11 aligns with the six‑day asah work, not with the initial bara of Genesis 1:1.

If you see a counterexample within the Pentateuch where Moses uses bara for ordinary human action or uses asah to summarize the initial creation of “the heavens and the earth,” I’d be interested in that.

60

I don’t dispute that ANE texts often begin with pre‑existent waters or background conditions. My point is simply that Genesis itself never portrays those waters as uncreated, nor does it suggest they existed prior to God’s initial creative act. That’s why the dependent‑clause reading doesn’t actually solve the problem you think it does, it just seems to relocate the question.

Even if Genesis follows an ANE‑style structure, the text still begins with “the heavens and the earth” being bara by God. Nothing in the chapter implies that the raw materials existed independently or eternally. The ANE parallels explain the literary pattern, but they don’t override the lexical pattern Moses uses:

  • bara for the initial creation of “the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1)

  • asah/yatsar for the six‑day forming and ordering (Gen 1:3–31)

  • asah again when Moses summarizes the six‑day work (Exod 20:11; 31:17)

So even if one grants the ANE structural parallels, they don’t address the question I’m raising: Why does Exodus 20:11 use asah—the six‑day verb—rather than bara when referring to the six‑day activity? The literary pattern may explain the narrative flow, but it doesn’t explain Moses’ verb choice.

If you think the dependent‑clause reading accounts for that lexical distinction, I’d be interested in how you see the two fitting together.

61

I’m fine acknowledging the ambiguity in Genesis 1:1–2 and the legitimacy of the dependent‑clause reading. Where we differ is simply on what carries more interpretive weight once the grammar is admitted to be flexible.

For me, the decisive factor isn’t the ANE parallels or the narrative structure but Moses’ own lexical pattern. Even with the overlap you noted, the Pentateuch still shows a consistent usage:

  • bara marks the initial bringing‑into‑existence (Gen 1:1; 1:21; 1:27; 2:3).

  • asah/yatsar dominate the six‑day forming, shaping, and assigning work (Gen 1:3–31).

  • And when Moses later summarizes the six‑day activity, he uses asah again (Exod 20:11; 31:17), not bara.

That’s why I see Genesis 1:1 as the initial act and the six days as the subsequent forming/ordering week. The dependent‑clause reading is grammatically possible, but it doesn’t explain why Moses avoids bara when referring to the six‑day work and instead uses the verb that characterizes the forming/filling sequence.

I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge multiple viable readings. For me, the internal lexical consistency across Genesis and Exodus is what tips the scale.

1 Like
62

Here is another complication with the distinction between asah and bara:

Genesis 1:26-27 ESV

[26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In verse 26 God says “Let us make (Asah) man in our image, after our likeness” then immediately following in verse 27 God created (Bara) man in his own image.

I’m not sure what we would do with this passage if we were making an effort to distinguish the terms.

2 Likes