Ex nihilo? Was Raqiyah

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Jul 22 20:19:54 EDT 2002

>I see creation ex nihilo in verse 1, which I still interpret as an
>independent sentence - don't let's get back into discussing the syntax

You still haven't explained the relationship of the 
first two verses with the rest of the creation story, 
given that the first creative act according to the 
imposition of the seven day week was that the first 
act of creation begain on day one when God said, Let 
there be light.

>On my interpretation, which is certainly a very ancient one going
>back at least to the LXX, there is no mention of preexisting matter,
>just that God created the heavens and the earth. 

The aorist form of the verb indicates that the LXX 
does not in fact support the position you claim. My 
reaction was that it had to be an inceptive aorist 
ie we are looking at the start of the creation in v1, 
though another approach was also outlined on this 
list was that the aorist gave an overview of the 
whole story which followed. It certainly is not a 
punctiliar aorist -- as it's not a punctiliar action.

>This interpretation
>takes v.2 as a description of the state of the earth just after it had
>been created.

Either way, inceptive aorist or overview, such an 
interpretation doesn't seem available.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list