For the last two-thousand years, Christians have held that scripture teaches that God created the universe out of nothing, or at the least "things which are seen are made from that which is not seen" (Heb. 11:3). The great majority of Jewish rabbis have agreed with this view. One of the main verses of scripture to support this position is the first verse in the Bible. It is almost universally translated as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Christian apologetics has gotten some mileage out of this ever since the Big Bang (with or without hyperinflation) has been revealed to be the most consistent scientific explanation for how the cosmos appeared. The universe had a beginning. Other creation accounts in other faiths consistently have the gods fashioning the cosmos out of some pre-existing material. Some Christians once considered the "Big-Bang" to be an anti-Christian idea, but over time most have realized that since it is confirming "Creation Ex-Nihilo" that it actually harmonizes with scripture. Atheists and naturalists realized this much more quickly, and spent decades trying to find a way to shoe-horn an eternal universe or at least eternal multiverse, into the data.
That being so, forgive me if I am skeptical of recent claims that Genesis 1:1-2 has been mistranslated over the centuries and should actually be translated in a way which suggests that the God of the Bible fashioned the universe out of a pre-existing, though chaotic, material just like in those other creation myths. Here are the new alternative translations from the Wiki article on Genesis 1:1-2a, and the classic translation of verse one.
1. As a statement that the cosmos had an absolute beginning (In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth). ED: THIS IS THE CLASSIC TRANSLATION2. As a statement describing the condition of the world when God began creating (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was untamed and shapeless).3. Taking all of Genesis 1:2 as background information (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth being untamed and shapeless, God said, Let there be light!).[4]
I find it just too convenient that after twenty centuries with hardly any dispute, only in the last few decades has there been any serious challenge to the idea that Gen. 1:1 teaches creation ex nihilo. I'm not saying that no one else ever proposed these alternative translations, once every few centuries someone might suggest so, but the view never got traction. The text just doesn't support it, and it is doubtful that it even allows for it. Only after it gets embarrassing for the skeptics that the Bible stands out from other creation stories in a way which is confirmed by modern scientific observation do the faux-sophisticates dust off these hypotheses.
Look, I have no loyalty to modern translations when they obviously don't fit the underlying Hebrew or Greek, my book is evidence of that. But this effort seems very forced and an attempt to make the Genesis account just like other Ancient Near East Creation stories where uncreated matter existed but was in a chaotic and primordial state before the gods brought order.
These Hebrew scholars are now claiming that they have learned that in certain circumstances the text can be translated so that it is describing an already existing condition. OK, so the matter existed in a sorry state before God spoke His word. But that doesn't mean that the already existing condition wasn't also created by God, as the traditional translation indicates. God created the universe Before the First Day. The creation week is describing His work ON a universe which He had previously created. That's all the verse is saying and attempts to make it more than that torture the text.
For example, the latter two translations above start with the English word "When". Well, there is a Hebrew word translated "when" (as well as "for" and a couple of other things) (more than one really) and this word is not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1. They stuck in an English word where there was no Hebrew word there. Then, to start verse two, they leave off the "and" which joins the condition of the earth to God creating it. In the Hebrew of this verse there is a "waw" character there which means "conjunction" (and). In other words- the "and" is in the Hebrew text, but the new translations leave it out, while also starting the verse with a word which is not in the text.
For example, the latter two translations above start with the English word "When". Well, there is a Hebrew word translated "when" (as well as "for" and a couple of other things) (more than one really) and this word is not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1. They stuck in an English word where there was no Hebrew word there. Then, to start verse two, they leave off the "and" which joins the condition of the earth to God creating it. In the Hebrew of this verse there is a "waw" character there which means "conjunction" (and). In other words- the "and" is in the Hebrew text, but the new translations leave it out, while also starting the verse with a word which is not in the text.
See that character to the far left that looks like a colon at the end of the word for earth? That is the sof passuk, equivalent of a period in Hebrew. So if "When" starts that verse, and again the characters indicating "when" do not appear, it must be "When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (PERIOD). " These alternate translations don't account for that!
Grammar in other languages can be tricky, but that is an awkward fit in any language. It isn't a proper sentence. At most it could be a sentence fragment in answer to a previous question (obviously not) or a title. In English of course, titles don't need periods. But if it is a title, that doesn't explain why the next sentence begins with a conjunction. "And the earth was formless and void...". What is it conjuncting with if not the previous sentence? These alternate translations have to twist the text and ignore how the same word form is used elsewhere.
Up to this point I would imagine that all creationists are cheering me on. But all of this raises another issue, because if the traditional translation is correct, it means that initial conditions of creation, before God spoke His word into it, were far from perfect. Regardless of which way the verse is translated, it poses a problem for Young Earth Creationism. They think God created the universe as a place of sinless and deathless perfection. In their theology, there was no physical death before the fall of Adam. Either way you look at it though, the text doesn't say that. Creation started off a bad place to be that was increasingly made better by His Word entering that creation. At the sixth day He appointed man as His representative to finish His work of subduing the earth and exercising dominion over it.....confirmation that despite all the ordering He had done it was still a somewhat unruly place, save for the garden.
It will be interesting to see if YEC even give up on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo to preserve a theological framework which is inconsistent with the initial state of the universe in Genesis 1:2. They either have to give up the idea that God created the universe, demoting Him into a fashioner of what already existed apart from Him as the Gnostics and other ANE cultures thought, or they have to jettison their ideas about the universe being perfect before the fall of Adam. What I pray they give up is theology which isn't really in the bible concerning early Genesis and instead adopt the Christ-centered model, which gloriously demonstrates that Genesis isn't just another ANE myth, but the inspired word of God.
******************
Post Script-
Dr. Henry Sun was on a YouTube video from the "What Your Pastor Didn't Tell You" channel and he was defending the re-translation based on the idea that it was a construct. The young host asked him if that mattered. Here is my response which I put in the thread. Dr. Sun did not reply even though he replied to others in the thread.....
You asked the right question at 23:26. I question whether Dr. Sun has the right answer. More likely it DOES NOT MATTER whether it is construct or not because Hebrew has these groups of characters and words meant to be taken as a single thought and put with those in the next section. I don't say this as an expert in Hebrew, but it is something elementary. So using what the bible Hub interlinear shows.... "In the beginning of Created God - the heavens and the earth". You have two thoughts there. The first is taken and applied to the second. Even if the "of" is there, it still means "of the heavens and the earth: IMHO. 'The beginning of the heavens and the earth was God creating them' is still the thought that is being expressed. "And the earth was formless and void" starts with a conjunctive "AND". It is connected to the first part. "“When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” doesn't match with the conjunctive "and" which starts verse 2. Not sure it would even need one if what it is trying to say is that the earth was formless and void when God began to "create" it. Verse three is where the actual work, but not BARA, creating work, begins. That starts with a consecutive and, showing that it is referring to something happening AFTER verses 1 and 2. Verse two has His spirit brooding or hovering. He isn't doing any creating there. Even if it means He "began creating" then He "began creating" sometime before the start of verse 3, because v 3 starts off with the consectuive "and". Therefore this translation is nonsensical. It is describing Him as beginning the creating and then in v 2 describes Him as NOT creating but just brooding or hovering. Then there is a time movement, and the subsequent event (which isn't even "creating", that verb is only used on days five and six) which is shaping an already existing world, begins. The use of bara only on days five and six is another reason why this new translation does not add up. He didn't "create" the heavens OR the earth on any of the six days. Rather, other words are used to describe His action. The only things created during that week were animals of the sea and sky and humans on days five and six respectively. This supports the idea that the "creating" of the heavens and the earth came before the first "day". After that He 'worked on' or fashioned the heavens and the earth which He had previously created. His examples of "when the sentence structure was the same and it is translated "when"" are I am sorry to say, misleading. For example Numbers 3:1 was his first cite and his translation says "When the Lord spoke to Moses". But the actual word used is a combination of the Hebrew "Be" and a form of "Yom". So that a more precise translation would be "in the day the Lord spoke with Moses" or "in the year" or "in the time" the Lord spoke with Moses. So the Hebrew "Be" combined with some time refferent is "In the ___________". Well, if the time referrent is "beginning" then the translation should be "in the beginning".
******************
Post Script-
Dr. Henry Sun was on a YouTube video from the "What Your Pastor Didn't Tell You" channel and he was defending the re-translation based on the idea that it was a construct. The young host asked him if that mattered. Here is my response which I put in the thread. Dr. Sun did not reply even though he replied to others in the thread.....
You asked the right question at 23:26. I question whether Dr. Sun has the right answer. More likely it DOES NOT MATTER whether it is construct or not because Hebrew has these groups of characters and words meant to be taken as a single thought and put with those in the next section. I don't say this as an expert in Hebrew, but it is something elementary. So using what the bible Hub interlinear shows.... "In the beginning of Created God - the heavens and the earth". You have two thoughts there. The first is taken and applied to the second. Even if the "of" is there, it still means "of the heavens and the earth: IMHO. 'The beginning of the heavens and the earth was God creating them' is still the thought that is being expressed. "And the earth was formless and void" starts with a conjunctive "AND". It is connected to the first part. "“When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” doesn't match with the conjunctive "and" which starts verse 2. Not sure it would even need one if what it is trying to say is that the earth was formless and void when God began to "create" it. Verse three is where the actual work, but not BARA, creating work, begins. That starts with a consecutive and, showing that it is referring to something happening AFTER verses 1 and 2. Verse two has His spirit brooding or hovering. He isn't doing any creating there. Even if it means He "began creating" then He "began creating" sometime before the start of verse 3, because v 3 starts off with the consectuive "and". Therefore this translation is nonsensical. It is describing Him as beginning the creating and then in v 2 describes Him as NOT creating but just brooding or hovering. Then there is a time movement, and the subsequent event (which isn't even "creating", that verb is only used on days five and six) which is shaping an already existing world, begins. The use of bara only on days five and six is another reason why this new translation does not add up. He didn't "create" the heavens OR the earth on any of the six days. Rather, other words are used to describe His action. The only things created during that week were animals of the sea and sky and humans on days five and six respectively. This supports the idea that the "creating" of the heavens and the earth came before the first "day". After that He 'worked on' or fashioned the heavens and the earth which He had previously created. His examples of "when the sentence structure was the same and it is translated "when"" are I am sorry to say, misleading. For example Numbers 3:1 was his first cite and his translation says "When the Lord spoke to Moses". But the actual word used is a combination of the Hebrew "Be" and a form of "Yom". So that a more precise translation would be "in the day the Lord spoke with Moses" or "in the year" or "in the time" the Lord spoke with Moses. So the Hebrew "Be" combined with some time refferent is "In the ___________". Well, if the time referrent is "beginning" then the translation should be "in the beginning".
************************
Update: this article shows the details of the issue and why the best solution is a tweaking of the translation in a way that retains the intent of the traditional translation rather than one of the convoluted new translations that have their own problems "Originally, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep....
The same prefix also means "at, so it could also be "At commencement, God created the heavens and the earth....." or "In A beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"....implying there could be mulitple universes each with an indpendent supernatural realm.
That's even if there is a problem with the original translation. As I have said, Numbers 3:1 literally means "in the day" and it has the same "be" prefix as is found in be-reshith in Gen. 1:1. It seems like it doesn't have to say "ba" to be translated "in THE (time period)".
