The Earth became? formless and empty

[EricH]

Reading some posts here, I ran across the following:

One final comment about Gen. 1:2;

The King James Version says; And the earth was

[Botz]

EricH. You are partially right. The verb in is the qal perfect 3fs. The gender has nothing to do with the tense in hebrew. Qal is the stem, and perfect is the tense. I did not address the gender or person (singular or plural). I was addressing the stem and tense. Haya is simply the standard form. When speaking of a verb it is normal to refer to the standard form. Look at any of your lexicons and they will list the qal perfect 3ms as the standard form. It is not confusing because that is how people typically parse the verbs (Qal perfect 3fs of haya)

Thank you EricH...I do understand that. I just thought it was important not to revert back to 'haya' when in previous posts we had established that the actual word used was in the feminine form. To those that skim over what is being referred to and do not read Hebrew, I thought it might appear confusing.

You also mentioned....

There are reasons why became is not the best translation, but they are technical

If you have the inclination I would be interested in the 'technical details'....

Many thanks. In Messiah. Botz

[Floatingaxe]

I have always understood it to mean "became", so I would really like to know what those technical reasons for it not meaning "became" are.

[Bremerton]

A few points...

If the people you are talking to aren't saved and are bringing this up, I would tell them "All of the heavy elements on this planet are the result of 4 previous generations of stars. This would make the biblical account amazingly accurate, wouldn't you agree?"

If you are talking to Christians who seemed disturbed by what it might mean, I would tell them "It is what it is and regardless of what it is, it is our place to learn from the truth, not change it because it makes us feel uncomfortable". I'm sure folks who believed in a round earth had a rough time until the matter was settled. Most of the opposition came from the church, who then took another look at what the scriptures actually said (as opposed to what they had argued it said previously), and then came to grips with the truth of the matter that always was.

Earlier someone used a translation for earth and said that it is actually translated as land. Ironically, the last time I heard the Hebrew word eretz used, was by a proponent of the local flood theory. It was written by a scientist (a geologist I believe) that was also a Christian. You can read it here for a very good word word study on the Hebrew word eretz: http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what she wrote, it's just a good word study.

The problem with declaring with a sense of absolute certainty what scripture says or means, means that you are approaching it as something that you have under control. It's not that many of us fail to understand scripture, it's that our approach needs much to be desired. If we approach scripture, each and every time we read it, with an open mind to God and a fanatical loyalty to the truth, we will learn much more about what it says and what it means. If we use the bible as a self licking ice cone that supports our belief system in various doctrines (no matter how good they may be), you're better off putting down your bible for a while and replacing it with one with no cross references or notes written in the margins or at the bottom of the page. Get one that leaves a wide gap in the margins so you can write your own notes! It will change the way you read scripture forever, and it will deepen your understanding of scripture a thousand fold what it would have been with all of those PhD opinions written in them. If you had any serious questions that you needed to refer to the original language to understand better, do a word study. Just leave others opinions out of it and allow God's Holy Spirit to teach, lead and guide you.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Bremerton

[Celt]

The 19th century Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger stated there was no verb 'to be' in the Hebrew of the texts like how our verb 'to be' works in English (see The Companion Bible). He treated the tense as 'became'. Barnes stated that the word 'haayah' has 3 possible meanings, "Be, as an event, start into being, begin to be, come to pass." (see PC Study Bible, Barne's notes on Genesis 1). He further explained that according to how the word eretz occurs in the passage in conjunction with the verb determines what tense is intended in the Hebrew. In Barne's case, it was "become" or 'come to pass', in the sense that some catastrophe happened to change the land from the absolute creation declared in Gen.1:1.

All this is no huge deal, since The LORD GOD does not expect us to understand a thing just based on one word taken out of His Holy Writ. Both Bullinger and Barnes believed the Gap idea of Genesis 1, and they didn't simply rely on one idea like 'come to pass' in the Hebrew of Gen.1:2.

[Guest bluekron]

Gen 1:2

Now the earth was formless and empty - New International Version

And the earth was formless and void - New American Standard Bible

And the earth was without form, and void - King James Vesrion

the earth hath existed waste and void, - Young's Literal Translation

1 First God created the heavens and the Earth, 2 the Earth formless and empty.

Notice I did not have "Now the Earth" or "AND the

Earth" and there was no "the Earth was" or "the Earth became"

Those word bolded above, do not exist in the Hebrew, they are added into English. So finally, here is my actual question again:

Is there any justification for rendering the verse "the the Earth BECAME empty". The corrolarry question is is there and justification for ruling that rendering out.

I have asked this same question to myself again and again. Instead of turning to translations... I turned to prayer and the knowledge that is in science. I am not saying that all science is truth... ex. evolution is just a theory. I also tried to put the written word in context of who wrote it and the period of time and their relative knowledge of what things are and their ability to describe things with a restricted vocabulary.. and whether it is written from inspiration or vision, etc.

This is my understanding or best yet the process through which I reach conclusions and revelation... what is earth and heaven? Can we see earth/heaven. Earth is physical and I can see all that is in it. (The physical is Space, Matter & Time) is heaven visible? I would think we cannot see heaven for it is beyond the realm of the earth ( the physical that we touch and see). Heaven is spiritual or for simplicity it is beyond the realm of the physical, for it is where God dwells. Thus we cannot go to Heaven physically. Thus I conclude:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

God created the spiritual and the physical (the foundations of the heavens and the earth)

The physical is where matter exist, was void and empty, the blackness you see when you look up at the sky at night

we were ordained before the foundations of the earth

Jesus was there as He was the first of all creation

Psalm 102:25

Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth and made the heavens with your hands.

Isaiah 48:13 (Whole Chapter)

It was my hand that laid the foundations of the earth, my right hand that spread out the heavens above.When I call out the stars, they all appear in order.

[Tehilah Ba'Aretz]

I have always understood it to mean "became", so I would really like to know what those technical reasons for it not meaning "became" are.

This may sound strange but I find your question confusing. I am a Hebrew speaker/thinker. To me, the words have meaning because that is what they mean. A rose is not a tractor. I am sure that you will agree that ancient Hebrew was a language of the culture and was in common usage by a national/ethnic group. With that as a given, it is impossible to accept that there was no understanding of past, present and future. As is true in every language, it is possible to express these qualities and quantities. In fact, Hebrew is excellent for defining the nuances.

[Floatingaxe]

I have always understood it to mean "became", so I would really like to know what those technical reasons for it not meaning "became" are.

This may sound strange but I find your question confusing. I am a Hebrew speaker/thinker. To me, the words have meaning because that is what they mean. A rose is not a tractor. I am sure that you will agree that ancient Hebrew was a language of the culture and was in common usage by a national/ethnic group. With that as a given, it is impossible to accept that there was no understanding of past, present and future. As is true in every language, it is possible to express these qualities and quantities. In fact, Hebrew is excellent for defining the nuances.

Can you explain to me why the word, "became" doesn't mean "became"? I've been waiting a long time, and I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

[Celt]

Gen 1:2

Now the earth was formless and empty - New International Version

And the earth was formless and void - New American Standard Bible

And the earth was without form, and void - King James Vesrion

the earth hath existed waste and void, - Young's Literal Translation

1 First God created the heavens and the Earth, 2 the Earth formless and empty.

Notice I did not have "Now the Earth" or "AND the

Earth" and there was no "the Earth was" or "the Earth became"

Those word bolded above, do not exist in the Hebrew, they are added into English. So finally, here is my actual question again:

Is there any justification for rendering the verse "the the Earth BECAME empty". The corrolarry question is is there and justification for ruling that rendering out.

I have asked this same question to myself again and again. Instead of turning to translations... I turned to prayer and the knowledge that is in science. I am not saying that all science is truth... ex. evolution is just a theory. I also tried to put the written word in context of who wrote it and the period of time and their relative knowledge of what things are and their ability to describe things with a restricted vocabulary.. and whether it is written from inspiration or vision, etc.

This is my understanding or best yet the process through which I reach conclusions and revelation... what is earth and heaven? Can we see earth/heaven. Earth is physical and I can see all that is in it. (The physical is Space, Matter & Time) is heaven visible? I would think we cannot see heaven for it is beyond the realm of the earth ( the physical that we touch and see). Heaven is spiritual or for simplicity it is beyond the realm of the physical, for it is where God dwells. Thus we cannot go to Heaven physically. Thus I conclude:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

God created the spiritual and the physical (the foundations of the heavens and the earth)

The physical is where matter exist, was void and empty, the blackness you see when you look up at the sky at night

we were ordained before the foundations of the earth

Jesus was there as He was the first of all creation

But there's part of the problem.

If we defer to the thinking of human secularism and "age of reason" rhetoric, then the 'tohuw va bohuw' ("without form, and void" or "formless and empty") phrase gets totally away from how God interpreted it for us in other Bible Scripture.

In other Bible Scripture, the Hebrew word 'tohuw' ("without form") means something that existed which went into confusion and became a waste or ruin, like good fruit going bad. Likewise with 'bohuw' ("and void") per Isaiah 34:11 as translated to "stones of emptiness" (KJV). In Isaiah 45:18 God was very clear that He did NOT create the earth 'tohuw'. The word 'tohuw' is translated to "vain" there, but it's the same word for "without form" in Gen.1:2 and Jer.4:23. In Jeremiah 4:23-28, "without form, and void" appears again, and it's about a destruction God brought upon the earth destroying both man and beast.

This means "without form, and void" or "formless and void" are bad English translations.

It means the earth was NOT in a formless state in Gen.1:2, nor that it's about some kind of nothingness or chaotic ether state. If God's Word is used as the interpretor, then Gen.1:2 shows the result of a destruction upon the earth which God brought to end some event that had occurred upon the earth.

AS for understanding the difference between earthly matter (the physical) and the heavenly, even the known UNIVERSE of stars and planets are part of the 'physical' creation of matter.

But Heaven where God dwells, that is about a different dimension altogether than the known physical universe. The way I think of the heavenly using scientific reasoning (as much as it be possible), it might have something to do with manifestations that exceed the speed of light, or something that would define a crease in time/space.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Celt

[Tehilah Ba'Aretz]

I have always understood it to mean "became", so I would really like to know what those technical reasons for it not meaning "became" are.

This may sound strange but I find your question confusing. I am a Hebrew speaker/thinker. To me, the words have meaning because that is what they mean. A rose is not a tractor. I am sure that you will agree that ancient Hebrew was a language of the culture and was in common usage by a national/ethnic group. With that as a given, it is impossible to accept that there was no understanding of past, present and future. As is true in every language, it is possible to express these qualities and quantities. In fact, Hebrew is excellent for defining the nuances.

Can you explain to me why the word, "became" doesn't mean "became"? I've been waiting a long time, and I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Became is the infinitive form of Haya. That is, it is not the same word. The word in Genesis 1 is Hayita which is not the infinitive. Hebrew uses the series of words that English speakers think of as, "to be" in a way that is not the same. Sorry that I didn't answer earlier. As noted above, I was confused by the question. To me, it seemed like you were asking why apples are not bananas. Anyway, one of the wonderful things about Hebrew is the usages and the nuances that can be understood from what may seem like minor changes. The root word for both was and became are the same but the usages give them completely different meanings.