I’m not walking back anything, I’ve consistently said my point is linguistic, not an argument for “two creation events.” Genesis 1:1 is an originating act whether one reads it as an independent or dependent clause, because the six‑day sequence doesn’t begin until 1:3 with the repeated day‑marker “And God said…”. That’s why I asked what concrete state you think v.2 describes if v.1 is not an actual creative act; calling it “before creation” doesn’t explain how the narrative treats it. On bara inside the six‑day section, I’ve never denied it appears there; my point is that its presence in 1:3–31 is exactly why Genesis 2:2–3 can summarize the six‑day work using both verbs without implying that 1:1 occurred during those days. As for Exodus 20:11, the pattern isn’t about restricting asah—it’s that Moses consistently uses asah to summarize the six‑day work and never uses bara for that purpose, even though bara was available and already used in 1:1. You may not find two examples compelling, but they still show that the author distinguishes the originating act from the forming work when he summarizes. My point has only ever been that the narrative structure and verb distribution suggest the same distinction.
I agree that many scholars read Genesis 1:1 as a dependent clause, and I’m not ignoring that tradition. But even on that reading, 1:1 is not functioning as a summary of the six days. A dependent clause still introduces the state of affairs before the six‑day sequence, not the content of the six days themselves. The narrative markers make that clear: every day begins with “And God said…,” which first appears in 1:3, not 1:1. That means the six‑day sequence is 1:3–31 regardless of clause choice. And since bara and asah both appear within that 1:3–31 section, Genesis 2:2–3 can summarize the six‑day work using both verbs without implying that the initial creation happened during those days. So reading 1:1 as a dependent clause doesn’t actually solve the issue you’re raising; the structure of the chapter still keeps the initial creation distinct from the six‑day forming work.
You are arguing that Genesis 1:1 represents a separate creation event and your “observations” re tempts to force the text to support that view. I have never suggested that you said bara is superior so I don’t know why you keep objecting that you didn’t say it,
And I have never claimed that “whether bara appears inside the six days: was “the question”. Though surely that is part of the “distribution of verbs”. And we have yet to see how the structure of the chapter supports your claim.
And that is clearly untrue. The ever-shifting linguistic discussions are attempts to support the view that Genesis 1:1 is a separate creation event outside of the six days.
Sure it does. It’s the starting point for creation, it’s what God has to work with.
Which is saying that the distribution of verbs can’t support your point. If either can be used, that’s it.
As you’ve admitted above Genesis 2:2-3 uses bara.
No it does not. Two examples are not enough to show that, even in the absence of a counter example - which we have.
]
And none of your varying arguments have come close to showing any such thing.
I’m not proposing two creation events, nor am I assigning superiority to bara, I’m simply noting how the narrative itself distinguishes the initial act of creating “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1 from the structured six‑day sequence that begins in 1:3. Genesis 1:1 is a complete clause with its own verb and object, followed by the disjunctive break in 1:2, and only then the six days introduced by “And God said…,” where asah and yatsar dominate. That structural pattern, not a preconceived theory, is what suggests the text treats the initial creation and the six‑day forming work as distinct phases within a single creation narrative. You may interpret that structure differently, but the distinction itself is already in the way Moses frames the chapter
I agree with you that the Sabbath context in Exodus 20 naturally calls for asah, because the command is grounding human work in God’s work. Humans don’t “create” in the bara sense, so asah is the right verb for the analogy.
Where I think the discussion continues is in what that six‑day work refers to. Moses consistently uses bara for the initial creation in Genesis 1:1, and asah for the forming, ordering, and assigning work in Genesis 1:3–31. Since Exodus 20:11 uses asah, it aligns more naturally with that six‑day forming work rather than the initial creation event.
So I agree with your point about the Sabbath context, but I don’t think it requires us to read Exodus 20:11 as referring to the initial creation. The verb Moses chose fits the six‑day forming week better than the moment of creation in Genesis 1:1.
I think you’re reading more into my intent than I’ve actually claimed. I do believe Genesis 1:1 is an actual creative act and that the six days begin in 1:3,but that conclusion is drawn from the way the chapter is framed, not from treating bara as a magic key. Genesis 1:1 is a self‑contained clause, 1:2 is a disjunctive description of the earth’s condition, and only then do we get the repeated “And God said…” pattern that structures the six days; that’s the narrative distinction I’m pointing to. The verb discussion is simply one line of evidence within that: bara is used for the originating act (1:1) and within the six days, while asah is the verb consistently used when Moses later summarizes the six‑day work (Exod 20:11; 31:17), which at least suggests he can distinguish between the initial bringing‑into‑existence and the subsequent forming/ordering phase, even if you don’t find that pattern persuasive
The grammar here is ambiguous enough to allow several legitimate readings. I don’t think anyone is denying that your interpretation is possible. The issue is that it is only one of several grammatically viable options. Because of that, the grammar by itself can’t be used to establish that Genesis 1:1 must describe a separate creation event prior to the six days. At most it shows that such a reading is possible, not that it is required. Once we recognize that, the argument has to turn on the broader narrative context rather than on grammar alone.
You still seem to be assuming that the dependent clause introduces a prior state rather than the timeframe in which the narrative unfolds. But those are two different grammatical possibilities. A temporal clause such as “when God began to create…” can introduce the beginning of the narrative process itself, not a period prior to it. On that reading, verse 2 describes the initial condition when the creative work begins, and verse 3 records the first command within that process.
Additionally, bara already occurs within the six-day sequence (Gen 1:21; 1:27), and Genesis 2:3 summarizes the entire work as what God “created and made.” That summary naturally includes acts of bara, so it does not require a separate creation event outside the six days.
Since I already pointed out that you are not claiming either in the post you are replying to that seems redundant at best.
But it doesn’t. Indeed the text is not at all clear on that point at all. The use of a disjunction rather than a conjunction - that would imply a sequence - is a case in point.
On the contrary, you impose your preconceived idea on the structure as you have made perfectly clear.
Then the use of asah in the two Exodus verses is adequately explained.
No it doesn’t, and you can‘t leave out the opening verses of Genesis 2 since they are part of the same narrative,
I don;t make that claim. What I do claim is that those verses cannot be considered evidence that there is an initial creation apart from the six days.
It occurs to me that over the past several thousand years since Genesis was written, you cannot be the first to have considered this idea. Have you tried searching the relevant literature for similar interpretations?
The grammar of Genesis 1:1–3 is indeed flexible enough to allow more than one legitimate reading. I’ve never argued that my view is the only possible one, only that it is a coherent, textually grounded option that deserves to be taken seriously.
I’m not arguing that the grammar forces a two‑stage reading, only that it permits it, and that the lexical pattern across Genesis 1, Genesis 2:3, and Exodus 20:11 makes it narratively coherent.
Genesis 1:1 uses bara for the initial creation.Genesis 1:3–31 uses asah/yatsar for the six‑day forming and appointing. Exodus 20:11 summarizes the six days using asah, not bara.
That alignment is why I read 1:1 as the initial creation event and the six days as the forming/ordering week.
I’m not claiming the text forces a distinction between the initial creation and the six‑day forming work. I’m saying the text permits it, and the lexical and structural patterns make that reading coherent. That’s not a preconceived idea imposed on the text, it’s an interpretation drawn from the way the text actually behaves.
I’m not using Exodus 20:11 as evidence for an initial creation before the six days.
My point is simply that Exodus 20:11 most naturally refers to the six‑day forming/ordering work of Genesis 1:3–31, not the initial creation of 1:1–2.
That’s because Moses consistently uses asah for the six‑day work, and bara for the initial creation of “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1. Genesis 2:1–3 doesn’t collapse that distinction, it preserves it by using both verbs in the summary, because the week includes both kinds of divine action.
So I’m not claiming Exodus proves a prior creation.I’m saying it doesn’t rule one out, because Moses uses the six‑day verb (asah) to summarize the six‑day work, not the verb he uses for the initial creation (bara).
That’s why Exodus 20:11 most naturally aligns with Genesis 1:3–31 rather than 1:1–2.
yes, this isn’t a novel idea. Versions of this distinction between the initial creation and the six‑day forming work show up across a wide range of interpreters: Sailhamer, Collins, Beale, Ortland, Keller, C.S. Lewis, Philo, Basil the Great, Aquinas, numerous Jewish commentators
Sure. Nothing wrong with sharing thoughts and interpretations.
Thanks for sharing. All the best.
That’s not true. You claimed - and still claim that the text supports your preferred reading. Which is not the case even though all the straws you clutched at have failed. And that’s how we know that you were trying to support a preconceived reading all along.
You say that and then immediately contradict it:
But then it’s hardly the first time you’ve made obviously false claims in this discussion.
And another self-contradiction. Again this seems to be clutching at an imaginary straw to maintain the claim that you have evidence.