1.) What translastion is that cited above? I'm not familiar with it.

2.) It is a good question as like γῆ, the Hebrew term erets can mean both the earth or the land. That might be a good place to start to unpack the Hebrew mind in the OT, what is meant by erets?

I have four more observations to make along for this question. Before I mention them, I must admit that a.) I am by no means a Hebrew expert; b.) I need to study this more myself. That said here are my observations:

1.) Having examined both the Hebrew and LXX, I don't know where the supplied translation in the post is getting "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth." Unless my knowledge of the Qal perfect (or the aorist <font face="Palatino Linotype,Code2000,Gentium" size="+1">ἐποίησεν in the LXX</font>) is lacking (and it could be), I don't know where that term fits in. I don't think it should be there and hence the standard translation of "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," and it should be a complete sentence.

2.) The Hebrew term bara' needs to be studied as it is the word used in Genesis 1 (five times in the chapter as well as 2:3-4; 5:1; 6:7) to refer to the creation act(s). Perhaps this could shed light on the nature of "to create" in the Hebrew mind. Also, study needs to be done on qanah as well as the Greek terms κτίζω, γίνομαι, ποιέω. There verbs imply some sort of creative act.

3.) The extent and nature of "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1:1 needs to be determined. If this expression refers to the entire created order, both spiritual and physical (I guess would be the dichotomy), then Genesis 1 would refer to ex nihilo. If they do not refer to the entire created order, then some other notion of creation must be adopted. I think a study of this phrase in poetic literature in the Hebrew Bible would be necessary to understand this phrase due to the highly poetic nature of Genesis 1. To go along with this, the expression from Isaiah 40:28 ESV needs to be studied, "<font face="Palatino Linotype,Code2000,Gentium" size="+1">the Creator of the ends of the earth."</font>

4.) Hebrews 11:3 reads in Greek πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι θεοῦ εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι.  εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι is the phrase that needs to be understood. Is the extra-textual referent to τὸ βλεπόμενον the entire created order? What is the nature of τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων? Does this refer to nihilo?

I haven't looked into this, just some observations that I think need to be wrestled with. May be what you have been reading sheds light on some of these questions that I think need to be raised.

As far as the ancient near eastern world view and creation ex nihilo fitting together, I'm not sure they had those categories to fit Genesis 1 into. So its hard to say. But I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that they believed in once there was no universe, then there was a universe and that is because God/god created it, made it." Especially to early Christians. They tended to read the Bible (OT) in salvation-historical categories (salvation history) and read it as more of a story that pointed to Christ typologically and then climaxed in Christ. Much of the OT's predictions of Messiah were in typology, Adam and David being patterns that the Messiah would fit. As the history unfolded the patterns/types became more clear and yet complex (D.A. Carson has argued very persuasively for this).

I think what is at stake in creation in general (and I'm sure most of the authors here would agree) is that God's right to rule and govern creation, and to call all men to repent everywhere and to hold them accountable for their sin is at stake. We loose our ability to call men to repent of sin and return to God if God isn't the sole ruler of the universe. But as far as creation ex nihilo, I refer to my introductory comments.

I see two avenues for questioning both of which you all have highlighted.

1) How did Jews and Christians in antiquity view creation? (I know, I know, the Jews in antiquity when? - At any/all points, but most importantly during the time in which the Torah was written down... shoot, and before that, when the traditions were being composed.)

2) How do we now see creation? I think the views of the early Jews and Christians can certainly inform us, but I don't see any reason to blindly adhere to what they thought on this issue, just like I am not taking Tertullian's word on the invalidity of baptisms performed by women.

I don't know the ins and outs of the creation translation story in Genesis. I have heard from several sources that the way it reads in the Hebrew is that there is stuff there when we hear about God creating. Now, this does not exclude Her creating all that stuff beforehand, the story just picks up after the ex nihilo. If you read it the other way, then we hear about the creation ex nihilo.

Philosophically, I buy heavily into God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing.

Whats at stake? Like Hank says, it has implications for our concept of God. Is He all-X or not? Is She the great creator God or not? Is IT created as well? Does the universe come from Him, or Him from it, or have both been a hanging around together? What is for certain, and the creation account in Gen makes this clear, is that G-d ordered the chaos into the wonderful creation. Sin disrupted that order and brought death into it.

Now I need to get to my class, so I'll cut this off here.

Copan and Craig's Creation Out of Nothing is an excellent source on this. They strongly argue, from both Hebrew and other Ancient Near East scholarship, that the Genesis account requires an ex nihilo interpretation.

I greatly appreciate the comments so far, I'm glad to see some of you find this such an engaging (and interesting) topic). Unfortunately I'm crazy busy right now, but this weekend I intend to make time for this and further the discussion. Until then, keep on beginning. :)

Something I noticed during a study of a completely unrelated passage was the use of the Hebrew verb 'asa versus bara'. Both verbs are used for "creating" something. When the verb 'asa is used, the substance or object that is created is created from something and the source is always mentioned. When bara' is used, the source material(s) are never present. This doesn't prove ex nihilo but it does add some insight into the verb that the writer of Genesis 1 used to described the creation event.

FYI: 'asa really forms a nice lexical "buddy" with the Greek verb ποιέω--as oposed to bara', which the LXX uses to translate both Hebrew verbs.

It does seem that the earth in the first line becomes the land and the seas and something containing the stars and then, above that, some more water that becomes the rain that falls on the land. I can only deduce that (i) the heaven in the first line is a heavenly realm beyond this mundane realm, and that (ii) the physics of that early world was not the same as it is these days, when rain falls from clouds of course. But there may be other possibilities, amongst which the truth lies, of course.

Enigman,

That is my big question of the text. Given that the way it describes the creation (or ordering) of the world is physically impossible, and that it is meaning-laden, then perhaps we should not be looking at the text as a physical explanation, but as an explanation of the meaning of the world. It may be the case that our marriage to positivism skews our understanding of the text here.

The physics might be possible if the flood in Genesis 6-9 is a literal, world-wide flood that made the water in the sky empty out and the water beneath the ground burst forth. Perhaps the Noah's flood altered the physics of the earth. That is one possibility that is being automatically discounted it seems by Honzo. But the existence of a flood of that scope is another debate.

Also, I'm not sure "ordering" is the best understanding of bara' in Genesis 1:1; can I assume you are referring to the whole chapter when you refer to "ordering?"

I am refereing to the whole narrative in Gen. 1.

The physics before and after the flood? Is there any evidence, besides the ad hoc need for a change in physics to force the interpretation to work. I am discounting it because there is no evidence for it, both in the book and in reality. A much simpler way of looking at Gen is to go the myth route. No need for a dramatic shift in how physics work needed.

Gotcha, just wanted to make sure.

I wasn't advocating or discounting the flood narrative, rather making sure that it is an option that is weighed out by the reader rather than just immediately discounted despite any evidence that could be shown in its favor. I know that you yourself (speaking of Honzo) have examined the evidence and reached the above stated comment. This is also determined by how much authority one believes the Bible has on scientific issues as well. If I remember, most of the authors on this site probably wouldn't come to the Bible as the authority on the sciences?

I wonder if it's that simple though; even I would take science to be the authority on scientific matters, but the range of such matters is determined by conceptual considerations. If there is a Creator at all then, whatever the status of the Bible, this world is slightly analogous to the dream of a dreamer; much more so than if there is no Creator, at least (and especially if we were made in God's image, for then some such analogy should be fairly informative). And then we would have a good reason for, e.g., adding the concept of metaphysical time (the time of the dreamer) to the concept of physical time (the objective time of this world); and that affects how we might interpret the mathematical models of reality that are general relativity, as well as how we might reasonably interpret Genesis. For another e.g., laws of physics might, quite reasonably, be regarded as part of an intrinsically variable background (variable in metaphysical time) to more fixed objects, e.g. meaningful characters (with their experiences of time, which is likely metaphysical if they are souls), places and things.

Enigman,
That statement was very "enigmatic" and hard to follow. There were a lot of "e.g."s in there and I ask that you might flesh it out a little more and make it clearer.

And I also ask, as food for thought, does it have to be complex and difficult like we make it out to be? Just think about that. I remember in my philosophy class at SBU (ugh!) the prof had given one class the final of one question: "Why?" One student responded with "Why not?" Good question and answer--the student got a 50% for creative thinking hehehe.

I thought that was fleshed out and conceptually clear (if a little long and hard-to-read), so I'd want to know what, in particular, you wanted fleshing out (and even then I might not be able to flesh it out). But re your second quesion, sure, why not? We don't just take stuff in and regurgitate it, like we was robots; and thought begins with why and why not.

And we begin with simple things; and I'm one of those philosophers who find a lot of truth in the simple stuff. But I do think that how we go beyond those simple truths is a very complex business (as your earlier comments on this topic show). To read Genesis as a story is fine, and that may be all it was intended to be (but then why worry about the details of the language). But I think it more likely that that was part of what it was intended to be, which raises the fairly simple question, what about the rest of it? Of course, how I'm looking at it is a bit idiosyncratic (sorry).

But to me, it is a very simple idea, the idea that this world (and all of us in it) was created. Even if Genesis is just a story, you get that simple idea just so long as the Bible is about or (indirectly) by the Creator. You only don't get it if Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) is not even slightly true. So just think about creation. It is ex nihilo, like a dream; it is not like taking some clay from the world around you and rearranging it into a vase.

Even the making of Adam was the taking of mud and the rearranging it into a man (much as Naturalists believe happened, oddly enough). But God made the Universe and Heaven too! And as a dream develops, as its central characters (often including the dreamer) interact, it is usual (in my experience) for the very nature of the dream to change (in apposite ways). Analogously why should physics not change, if there was a Creator?

Why should it not, at any time, be to some extent open, how physics might change? But then, isn't it odd that we think that Genesis cannot be literally true just because the story taken literally contradicts known physics? (Or that that would be at least a complex philosophical concept.) It's like we're assuming atheism when we think like that!

It's like we're assuming that physical space is not as a fabric created ex nihilo would naturally be expected to be.

I hasten to add that I didn't mean to imply that you were thinking like an atheist, whence those "it's like" bits; rather, I'm curious about what theists do think about Creation as such (since I'm certainly ignorant of a lot in such matters).

Thank you, I was having a hard time following you're thought in the previous comment but I get you now. The grammar was a bit confusing for me--much like reading Titus 1:1-2 and keeping all of the prepositions straight.